Pee AN DER 
PMO IN LS 


II DEMANHUR, 1905 


Py, 


EDWARD T. NEWELL 





THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY 
BROADWAY AT 156tH STREET 
NEW YORK 
1923 


COPYRIGHT 1923 BY 
THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY 


Press oF T. R. Marvin & Son, Boston 


THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM LIBRARY 





THE DEMANHUR HOARD 


By Epwarp T. NEWELL 


Although this famous hoard of Alexan- 
der tetradrachms has already been partially 
studied and described by the present writer 
in the American Journal of Numismatics 
for 1911 and 1912,' there are nevertheless 
serious reasons for occupying ourselves, 
once more, with this extraordinary find. 
In the first place, the hoard at that time 
was only treated incidentally in explaining 
some observations made by the author as 
to the use of dies and the signatures of 
magistrates at certain of Alexander’s mints. 
The hoard is well worthy of more detailed 
attention than this. Also several thousand 
more coins from the find have since been 
seen and studied by the writer, and these 
contain about fifty important varieties not 
listed in the previous article. Finally, it 


PevtaboM ATIC. NOTES 




















ALE XA N D EGR (eesti 





is highly desirable that several erroneous 
statements, deductions, and attributions 
there made be now corrected in the light 
of a wider experience with the intricacies 
of the Alexander question. In those days 
the writer was but commencing his studies 
and was, naturally, only too ready to fol- 
low the lead of earlier writers, many of 
whose attributions have since proved fan- 
ciful. 

The material forming the basis of this 
study is composed of the following lots: 


I Such coins in the writer’s own collec- 
tion as came to him direct from the De- 
manhur deposit, mostly purchased in 
Egypt shortly after the hoard’s discov- 
ery. Some of the duplicates in this lot 
have since been ceded by the writer to 
the British Museum, to the collection of 
the United States Mint in Philadelphia 
(since removed to the National Muse- 
um, Washington), and to certain pri- 
vate collectors. 

II The collection of Gén. Ronald Storrs, 
and Mr. F. Munroe Endicott. These two 





NUMISMA TPG 





DEMANHUR 


enthusiastic collectors of the Alexander 
coinage were fortunate to have been in 
Egypt, in the diplomatic service of their 
respective countries, in the days of the 
hoard’s discovery. They early system- 
atised their efforts and together were 
able to obtain specimens of practically 
every variety once contained in the 
find. Their collections were formed 
from the first pick of perhaps about 
four-fifths of the entire hoard. 


III A lot of over a thousand specimens 
secured by M. Etienne Bourgey of Paris. 
This was probably the only portion of 
the find which had not previously been 
culled by Gen. Storrs or Mr. Endicott, 
and so contained a few rare varieties 
not represented in their collections. The 
greater portion of this lot was later pur- 
chased by the present writer, though 
only after numerous specimens had been 
sold by M. Bourgey to various collec- 
tors. Among these were Dr. Pozzi of 
Paris, M. Pierre Saroglos of Athens, the 
British Museum, and others. 


Poe ON O.GR A PHS 








ALEXANDER HOM 


IV A lot of over a thousand specimens 
which were brought back from Egypt 
by Mr. Azeez Khayat of this city. All 
of these coins, according to their gen- 
eral appearance and Mr. Khayat’s ex- 
press statement, once belonged to the 
Demanhur find. It was Mr. Khayat 
who first brought the hoard to the writ- 
er’s attention. 


V_ Seventy tetradrachms in the Toronto 
Archaeological Museum which had been 
purchased by the Curator, Mr. C. T. 
Curelly, in Egypt at the time of the 
hoard’s discovery. 


VI Several small lots in the stocks of 
various dealers abroad, such as J. Schul- 
man of Amsterdam, Messrs. Spink & 
Son of London, Dr. Jacob Hirsch of 
Munich, and others. Of all these coins 
the writer either secured the actual 
specimens or casts. 

Many of the Alexander tetradrachms 
in the Th. Prowe Sale, Briider Egger, 
Vienna, May, 1912, came originally 
from this hoard. 


NUMISMATIC® ON OPES 

















Dive aoNeH UR 









VII A small group of tetradrachms in the 
Hermitage collection whose Demanhur 
provenance was kindly brought to my 
attention by the former curator, M. 
Alexis von Markoff. 

VIII Certain small lots actually owned or 
kindly brought to my attention by Prof. 

Milne, Mr. E. J. Seltman, Mr. Endi- 

cott, Rev. Jeremiah Zimmerman, and 

others. 


















Lot III is now entirely dispersed, with 
the exception of about a dozen specimens 
in very fine condition. Lot IV also no 
longer exists as an entity. Those pieces 
which had been secured from it by Mrs. 
Draper, Mr. Thomas B. F. Curtis, as well 
as many purchased by Mr. T. L. Elder of 
this city, have since passed into the pos- 
session of the author. The remainder of 
Mr. Khayat’s lot is now divided between 
the American Numismatic Society, Mrs. 
Agnes Baldwin Brett, Messrs. L. V. Case, 
V. Hammer, and the writer. Before dis- 
posing of his portion of Mr. Khayat’s lot, 
Mr. Elder published a series of six plates 


yee ON OGRAPHS 





ALEXANDER VHOR Ra: 








in half tone showing the obverses and re- 
verses of about 300 tetradrachms. It 
should be noted, however, that no. 98 on 
Plates I and II was not from the find at 
Demanhur. It is a tetradrachm of Ptol- 
emy I (type of Svoronos no. 265) from a 
hoard of these coins found also in Egypt 
but at a slightly later date than the De- 
manhur hoard of Alexanders. 

This material, amounting in all to 4826 
specimens, constitutes what now remains 
to us of the great Demanhur hoard. That 
this, however, is not the entire find is cer- 
tain. Nevertheless, in the writer’s opinion, 
the material actually before us apparently 
comprises a very considerable portion of 
the original deposit. 

It is but natural that in the early days 
of the hoard’s discovery extravagant ru- 
mors concerning its size should have been 
current in Egypt, and generally believed 
in. The somewhat unusual occurrence of 
many thousand Alexander tetradrachms 
suddenly appearing upon the market not 
unnaturally gave the impression of a very 
much greater number having been found. 


NUMISMATYWh 

































DEMANHUR 








From impression to assertion is no very 
great step— and a good story seldom loses 
in the telling. Besides, the greater the find 
the more thrilling is the tale of treasure- 
trove. Above all, in Egypt one has grown 
accustomed by actual experience to the 
unearthing of extraordinarily large hoards 
of ancient coin. It is evidently thus that 
the statement (given credit to everywhere 
in Egypt) that the Demanhur find con- 
tained perhaps about fifteen thousand 
coins, and even twenty thousand or more, 
first gained currency. The writer’s per- 
sonal experience, based on two trips to 
Egypt and many years’ acquaintance with 
collectors and dealers the world over, has 
made him somewhat skeptical of these 
large figures. In spite of a most diligent 
search, now continued over the space of 
more than fourteen years, no more than 
the above-mentioned 4826 specimens, 
which can be definitely traced to Deman- 
-\hur, have been brought to light. In addi- 
tion, he has seen perhaps some two or three 
-|hundred pieces (dispersed among the trays 
of various dealers and collectors) whose 











AND MONOGRAPHS 


8 ALEXANDER Si G@eue a. 


appearance and previous history might 
suggest an assignment to our hoard. But 
because of the uncertainty they have not 
been included in our study. 

Doubtless many of the Demanhur coins 
were bought up by tourists in Egypt dur- 
ing the days when the coins were on the 
market—and such are probably defi- 
nitely lost to us now. It is possible that 
others were exported to Syria to supply a 
demand there, and the writer has indeed 
heard several statements to this effect. It 
is also quite probable that many of the 
poorer specimens were even melted down 
for their bullion value. To the writer’s own 
knowledge this actually did happen to a 
considerable portion of a large hoard of 
Athenian tetradrachms when their num- 
bers and the comparatively restricted de- 
mand threatened a glut on the market. 
That this fate overtook any very large 
number of the Demanhur Alexanders can- 
not be proved, nor has the writer heard of| - 
any statement to that effect. The hoard 
apparently contained very few pieces dis- 
figured by the punchmarks and counter- 


NUMISMATTCANO Ties 





























DEMANHUR 


stamps so often occurring on Greek coins 
found in Egypt. To suppose that all such 
coins had been picked out and melted down 
before the remainder was placed on the 
market is hardly reasonable. There is 
always a certain demand for coins of Alex- 
ander the Great, not only by collectors but 
also by noncollectors and tourists to whom 
the name of Alexander ever makes a strong 
appeal. The writer would not therefore 
place at any very high figure the number 
of Demanhur coins melted for their bullion, 
though he does not thereby mean to deny 
that this might not have happened to 
some. 

The most conservative estimates secured 
- |by the writer have always averaged around 
the figure ten thousand for the total num- 
ber of coins once contained in the hoard. 
Unfortunately the original finders have 
never been discovered and it is they alone 
who would be in any position to know the 
real number of the coins found. The hoard 
in its entirety apparently never passed 
through the hands of any one person, with 
the result that we shall probably never 


Peete M OINOoG RA PHS 








10 


ALEXANDER) HeGithai. 





know the exact number of pieces it once 
contained. If, however, to the definite 
number of 4826 which we now possess we 
should add the very generous allowance of 
2500, or even 3000, to cover such pieces as 
have disappeared in the trade or been 
melted down, it seems to the writer that 
we would have a figure tolerably close to 
the original number. 

Concerning the actual find-spot of the 
hoard nothing new has been ascertained 
since the previous article. Sig. Dattari’s 
account, kindly supplied to the writer in 
1911, still holds good— though it might be 
well to modify somewhat, as we have seen, 
the probable number of coins found. In 
his letter Sig. Dattari stated that the find 
was made by natives, that its true prove- 
nance was impossible to determine, that it 
eventually fell into the hands of several 
merchants residing in Demanhur, and that 
it took its name from this latter fact. He 
further stated that the deposit, containing 
anywhere from ten to twenty thousand 
tetradrachms, had been divided into five 
parts ‘“‘of several thousand coins each” ; 


NUMISMA DI CSN Oris 





DEMANHUR 








and that of these, one part had been sent 
to Alexandria, the others to Cairo for dis- 
posal. Perhaps two of the groups (III 
and IV) described above represent two of 
these original divisions. If so, we then 
possess a slight corroboration of our sug- 
gestion that the hoard originally contained 
not more than some seven or eight thou- 
sand at the outside, as both M. Bourgey’s 
and Mr. Khayat’s lots numbered only a 
little over a thousand coins each. 

From: a conversation on this subject re- 
cently held with M. Seymour de Ricci, who 
chanced to have been in Egypt engaged in 
. |his archaeological work at the time of the 
hoard’s discovery, it seems probable, in his 
opinion, that the hoard was really found 
somewhere in the vicinity of Demanhur 
and that this occurred sometime towards 
the end of 1905. M. de Ricci is also under 
the impression that the hoard contained 
over ten thousand coins, but states that he 
possesses no definite information upon 
|which to base an opinion, other than hear- 
say and the statements current in Egypt 
at the time. 


mew Dev ON OGRAPHS 











ALEXANDER’! HOARD. 


Although an unkind fate has willed it 
that the great Demanhur hoard should 
have been broken up and largely scattered 
before it became accessible for study, our 
loss has been partially made good by the 
fact that, in all. probability, we now know 
every variety it once contained. This 
good fortune is almost entirely due to the 
circumstance that Mr. Endicott and Gen. 
Storrs had been actively collecting in 
Egypt not very long after the great find 
was made. They displayed such an inde- 
fatigable enthusiasm and persistency in 


acquiring all varieties possible for their 
collections that few indeed can have es- 
caped them. The present study would 
have been all but impossible, certainly it 
would have lost much of its scientific value, | 
had it not been for the kind assistance and 


the access to their collections so readily 
granted by these gentlemen. Their col- 
lections, when combined, furnished practi- 
cally all the varieties listed in the follow- 
ing pages. The remainder occurred either 
in that portion of III which M. Bourgey 
sold to the writer, or among the specimens 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 





DEMANHUR 


which Dr. Pozzi, M. Saroglos, and the Brit- 
ish Museum had previously selected from 
the same source. 

The material at our disposal has here 
been divided among the nine large geo- 
graphical divisions in which there were ac- 
tive mints during the reigns of Alexander 
the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. These 
are: Macedonia, the Peloponnese, the Pro- 
pontis, South-western Asia Minor, Cilicia, 
Cyprus, Syria including Phoenicia, Baby- 
lonia, and Egypt. Under these headings 
the coins have been again subdivided into 
.|series, each series attributable to one mint. 
This division of the material before us has 
been governed by a close study of the style, 
fabric, and appearance of the coins them- 
selves. 

The mass of material placed at our 
disposal by such a find as that of Deman- 
hur makes it comparatively simple to 
sort the coins into greater or lesser groups 
‘which are easily distinguishable, the one 
from the other, by marked differences in 
style and fabric. It is obvious that with- 
in the boundaries of each larger district of 


PND MONOGRAPHS 















ALEXANDER HOR 







the ancient world there had flourished, 
for many years, local schools of art exer- 
cising undoubted influence upon the die- 
cutters of that particular region. By the 
time of Alexander’s arrival the technique 
and style peculiar to the local mint estab- 
lishments had become crystallized into a 
more or less hard and fast tradition. As 
Alexander in each case apparently em- 
ployed the local die cutters and mint ap- 
pliances for the issue of his own coin, we 
are thereby greatly assisted in sorting and 
attributing, with a fair amount of accuracy 
and probability, the greater portion of his 
coins— although they all bear uniform 
types whether struck in Macedonia or dis- 
tant Babylon. For Macedonia, then, we find 
a strong, vigorous, but heavy (one might 
say almost turgid) style. Though there 
is an unmistakeable similarity through- 
out the entire product of the Macedonian 
mints, it soon becomes evident that die 
cutters of very diverse ability were work- 
ing at one and the same time under the in- 
fluence of a local style and tradition. 

The Peloponnesian issues show a higher 































NUMISMATIC NOTES 








-DEMANHUR 


degree of art and a finer workmanship, but 
it seems evident that the die-cutters were 
accustomed to work on a smaller scale than 
that of the Attictetradrachm. It is a fact 
that the contemporary gold staters and di- 
staters of Alexander from this mint are 
much more pleasing and successful as works 
of art than the larger tetradrachms. 

The issues of the Hellespontine region 
are reminiscent of the preceding autono- 
mous coinages of this district; while the 
issues for Caria and Lydia show to a strik- 
ing degree the delicate and graceful influ- 
ence of Ionian artists. The Heracles head 
of the obverse has the soft contours and 
delicate modelling of that school, hardly 
suitable for the brawny hero of mythology. 
The Zeus figure on the reverse is a dainty 
specimen of gem engraving. On the whole, 
while these coins show a perfection of abil- 
ity and technique that is very attractive, 
they lack the vigor of the ruder Macedo- 
nian products. 

The Cilician and North Syrian issues 
are, at first, merely copies of the immedi- 
ately preceding satrapal coins struck here 


eee ON OG RA PHS 


ALEXANDER HOARDS 


by Mazaeus and other Persian governors.3 
There can be no doubt but that the same 
die-cutters continued to work for Alexan- 
der after his conquest of these districts. 

On the Island of Cyprus—as is only 
natural in view of its geographical position 
and commercial relations— we find a curi- 
ous blending of the Greek art of Asia Minor, 
the eastern art of Cilicia, and the technical 
appliances and customs (fixed dies, etc.) of 
Phoenicia. 

The typically oriental style of the earlier 
Phoenician coinages was carried over onto 
the succeeding Alexandrine issues. Com- 
bined with this style there were also con- 
tinued in use the local customs of each 
mint. Thus, unlike the other Phoenician 
mints, the Aradian issues were struck from 
loose dies as had always been the practice 
here; the coins of Byblus bear the abbre- 
viated name of the local king; while the 
Sidonian issues are struck from fixed or 
adjusted dies and bear the regnal years of 
the reigning prince. At all of these mints 
we find the local style continuing to develop 
independently, up toacertain point. Later 


NUMISMATIC VN GE 








Do MeAIN WT UR 





it became influenced by the beautiful style 
of the coins emanating from the mint at 
Egyptian Alexandria. 

The Alexander issues of Babylon are 
conspicuous for a style and character all 
their own, and destined to exercise a great 
and far spreading influence on the later 
coinages of Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria, 
and even portions of Asia Minor. 

For the newly opened mint at Alexandria 
in Egypt its great founder seems to have 
secured Greek artists of first rate ability. 
Their productions are well worthy the fu- 
ture fame of what was destined to become 
one of the greatest art centres of the an- 
cient world. The dies that were here pro- 
duced are exceedingly handsome, perhaps 
the finest to be found in the entire Alexan- 
der series. These beautiful coins found in- 
stant approval at the many coining centres 
of the eastern Mediterranean and were 
soon being used as models in Byblus, Bery- 
tus Sidon, Ake, Citium, Amathus, and at 
several other as yet unidentified mints of 
the neighboring districts. 

Thus we are enabled to distinguish by 





aie ONOGRAPHS 














ALEXAN DE Re Gas 





means of certain well defined lines of di- 
vergence, various groups in the general 
mass of the Alexander coinage. It is fur- 
ther quite possible, by paying strict atten- 
tion to minor details of style and technique, 
and above all to the sequence of dies and 
their use in consecutive issues, to subdivide 
these larger groups into their component 
series —each series the issue of a single 
mint. Unfortunately it often proves to be 
a much more delicate matter to suggest 
the name of the mint itself. Under Alex- 
ander and his immediate successors there 
are only isolated cases where special mon- 
ograms or symbols are used to designate 
the mint of a certain issue. 

It is distinctly noticeable that only the 
semi-autonomous city-states of Phoenicia 
and Cyprus were allowed thus to sign their 
respective coin-issues of the Alexander 
type. We are therefore led to suppose 
that the use of special marks of origin show 
these coinages to be a municipal rather 
than an imperial undertaking. The re- 
maining Alexander coinages of this time 
were evidently struck under the jurisdic- 





NUMISMA TIGANt, 














DEMANHUR 






























tion of imperially appointed officers in such 
provincial mints as were at the command 
of the central government (either of that 
particular province or satrapy, or of the 
empire as a whole). Therefore only the 
monograms and symbols of the responsible 
mint officials appear upon the coins. 

As stated above, by means of style we 
are indeed able to distinguish the issues of 
the larger geographical units. Where only 
one mint was in operation in a single prov- 
ince the name of this mint can then be de- 
termined with comparative ease, but where 
there were evidently two or more mints in 
operation at the same time, the problem 
immediately becomes more complicated 
and difficult of solution. Now the super- 
intendents of a particular coinage, as we 
have seen, guaranteed their issues by plac- 
ing the monogram of their name, or some 
personal symbol, in the field of the coin 
issued by them. Alexander’s empire, by 
its very nature, was such a cosmopolitan 
institution that little can therefore be 
gained by paying attention to the seeming 
local significance of any one of these sym- 












BN DeMONOGRAPHS 








20 


ALEXAN DERG. 


bols. A Greek magistrate in some eastern 
mint might conceivably choose as his pri- 
vate mark the symbol of his native town 
—pbut this evidently furnishes us no clue 
whatsoever to the actual city in which his 
coin was really struck. Again, the sym- 
bols chosen are, as a rule, quite banal, such 
as thunderbolt, caduceus, amphora, club, 
etc., etc. These might have been used 
anywhere in the ancient world. In certain 
instances something may be gained by an 
intensive study of a whole series of such 
magistrates’ symbols appearing on coins 
which, by their style, must have come from 
one mint —but this is an uncertain clue to 
follow and usually leads to ambiguous re- 
sults. 

In view of these difficulties and the true 
scope of the present articles on Alexander 
hoards,4 we can only outline the reasons 
for assigning the various series to certain 
mints, or, failing this, to show briefly why 
no mint name can as yet be suggested. 
In other words, the discussion of attribu- 
tions here must be looked upon as merely 
something in the nature of notes. The 


NUMISMATICAN@G 


DE MAIN H UR 


present series of articles is primarily in- 
tended, as stated in the introduction, to 
place on record unpublished or otherwise 
important finds of Alexander coins, rather 
than to be a final treatment of the whole 
subject. These articles, in fact, are but 
the basis for such a treatment. . 
In arranging the following list of the De- 
manhur coins the first column will be found 
to contain the serial numbers of the coins, 
while the second column gives us the num- 
|ber of specimens found of each particular 
variety. The third column is devoted to 
the symbol or monogram which distin- 
guishes each variety, and the fourth col- 
umn gives the reference to Miiller’s Les 
Monnaies d’ Alexandre le Grand, Copenha- 
gen, 1855. In this column a dash indicates 
the absence of that particular variety in 
Miiller’s work, though the coin may have 
since been published by one of the many 
students in our field. In the cases of Tar- 
sus, Myriandrus, Sidon, and Ake the writ- 
jer’s own numbers have been substituted 
in the place of Miiller’s, as for these mints 
the latter’s list has proved to be very in- 





AND MONOGRAPHS 


21 








oe 


ALEXANDER HOA DS 





adequate. In the fifth column are found. 
references to the plates. In the case of 
the present publication the plate numbers 
are in Roman capitals as I, II, etc., while 
the plate numbers in Arabic numerals refer 
to the writer’s previous study of the De- 
manhur hoard. The sixth and last column 
contains the indications of the general con- 
dition of the coins of each variety as found 
in our hoard. For this purpose the follow- 
ing abbreviations have been adopted: W 
(worn) to denote coins that have seen a 
greater amount of circulation, though it 
must be remembered that none of the coins 
in the find were worn really smooth; VG 
(very good) to designate coins that are well 
preserved though they may have been in 
circulation for some time; F (fine) and VF 
(very fine) to denote coins that are practi- 
cally uncirculated; B (brilliant) to desig- 
nate coins apparently fresh from the mint 
with their surfaces still sharp and brilliant. 

On the whole the condition of the coins 
in the Demanhur deposit averages very 
high indeed. Not only had the majority 
of the coins seen comparatively little cir- 








NUMISMATICY™NOES 








| DEMANHUR 23 


culation when their former owner consigned 
them to the earth, but since then the dele- 
terious action of time and the salts in the 
ground have affected but few. There are 
indeed certain specimens from the find 
which are covered with a heavy agglomer- 
ation of thick purple oxide, as shown on 
Plate I, nos. 1-3. Many of these also had 
fragments of terra cotta embedded in the 
oxide. But the majority of the Demanhur 
coins had only a very thin coating of oxide, 
and that usually merely in spots, while the 
remainder still present their original ap- 
pearance at the time they were buried 
nearly twenty-two and a half centuries 
ago. 

From the foregoing considerations it 
seems likely that the Demanhur coins were 
once contained in several terra cotta jars. 
One of these had evidently, in the course 
of centuries, become very badly broken, 
thus allowing water and the various chem- 
icals in the earth to attack its contents. 

| Those coins which lay nearest the sides of 
|the jar gradually became heavily coated 
with oxide, in one or two cases — as noted 














Dao MONOGRAPHS 





24 


ALEXANDER TOA 








by the writer — several coins coalescing into 
one conglomerate mass. ‘To some of these, 
furthermore, fragments of the broken jar 
still continue to adhere. The coins which 
lay in the centre of the jar’s contents were 
apparently but slightly attacked. On the 
other hand, one or more of the companion 
jars must have remained absolutely intact 
throughout the centuries, in order to ac- 


_|count for the exceptionally splendid con- 


dition in which such a large proportion of 
the coins still are to this day. 

Returning to our lists, it has already 
been stated that the entire material pre- 
sented by the hoard is divided according 
to the provinces of Alexander’s empire. 
The issues of each mint have again been 
divided into groups and series, approximate 
dates being assigned to them wherever pos- 
sible. As we are limiting ourselves, in the 
following pages, strictly to the coins actu- 
ally contained in the find it will not always 
be possible to discuss the dates in detail — 
that will have to be deferred until a larger 
number of the Alexander hoards will have 
been published and so made available to all. 


NUMISMATIC NV 





DEMANHUR 





As the types of the Alexander tetra- 
drachms remain constant throughout, it 
will not be necessary to describe each coin. 
In general, then, we find a young head of 
Heracles on the obverse turned to the right. 
In the rare cases where the head faces to 
the left special mention will be made of 
that fact. On the reverse the seated Zeus 
invariably faces to the left. As a general 
rule Miuller’s observations still holds good, 
namely, that on the earlier issues the legs 
of Zeus are placed parallel to each other, 
on the later the right foot is drawn back 
and is to be seen behind the left. But 
this diversity of position had not ceased 
by the time of Alexander’s death, and the 
older type is often found continuing in 
certain mints until well into the third cen- 
tury B.C. The kingly title appears on a 
great many of the Demanhur coins and its 
presence is always specially noted in the 
catalogue. 


AND MONOGRAPHS 








op) 
A 
a4 
< 
© 
a0) 
a 
aa 
ja 
Zi 
< 
>< 
Gal 
4 
< 


I ‘TI (spremuMmop) ataany 
(9) I (qysiudn) waaany 
(S ‘Z) 1 NaW1NA 
(o*h)r5 eas avaH aTanod 
(Let BSe NuaLs 
(f)t- 50S (‘, 07) Moud 
407M (I}t "a= (‘I 01) MOUd 
"2 ‘a VLE 03 OLE vIu09 ‘YW dnoIn 
et pte rae codecs Teeowe Te 


“STIOdIHANYV : JUTT 


‘VINOGAOV IN 


‘CdavOH 
UNHNVNAC AHL NI SHYLLHTAVA HHL dO aNDOIVLVO 





NUMISMATIC NOTES 








27 


DEMANHUR 





9 


101M 


(g) € 
aes 
(I) ¢ 
(¢) 
(9) © 
(z) € 


(9) < 
Citar 
(O1) z 

(v) z 

é ‘TI 

Cale 

(6'L) 
(o1 ‘6) I 


—— (urejd) Moa 
ZOQ SASVDUd AO LUVdaNOd 
— SnmoONaGVO daLaTIIA 
LOIS ae INAGIML 
— , AUTAVA JO UVA 
16 *1eA YAAINO 
‘2 ‘a ICE 9419 ‘9 dnoiry 
vrz _ AVAT AAI 
P61 _. SQUVHLNVO 
Loz _ snmaonavo 
161 LAWIAH OILLV 
— mas SITALS 
ets HLVAUM 
go SddVu9 AO HONNA 
Lz VuOHdNV 


‘2a z€€ pue CEE vIW09 ‘g dnorn 


cl 


AND MONOGRAPHS 


28 


ALE X AN DER Oia se 


9 


401 9A 
"UOTIpUdD) 


(9) & 
(S$) ¢ 
(O01) v 
(¢) S 
(g) > 
(v) v 
(z) v 
(¢) v 
¢ “II 
(4) ¥ 
(9) ¥ 
(o1) ¢ 
‘aed 


1gz AULSATdV 
6¢¢$ -IeA NIHd 10d 
— avis 
Qzs dVaH S,aSuOH 


ae (Y) snaonavo 
— (S) snaonavo 


stl (“%) pue an 
= (S) pue ant 
— sagaonavd pue W 
CLI ICA ano 
Ute a TaIHS 


— daVaH S.A TOVa 


“2912 PIPy UI 
‘OD ‘ad 6zf pue Off vI419 ‘q dnoin 


-b1S 
-60¢ 
-10$ 
-o6+ 
-19V 
-7lV 
-CCY 
-Lev 

gcr 
-77V 
-C6¢ 
-€LE 

on 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 








DEMANHUR 





UAAINO GNV MOd 
SOHOVNOUd SVTITVd 


gol HVIAOONNAOD 
CCI ATOaID NI UVIS 
‘Da Qce vI419 ‘F dnoin 
z~Oe 3909 
99t WuaH 
L6 WAINVaONG 
100 SICA sngaondvo 
Soe) LNaOSauD 
Igl 4. 
= 3° 
gle VHd IV LNAd 
gII ’ qSOu 


‘a ‘a Let pue gz vo419 ‘ry dnoiy 





LV 
gs 
tI 


Col 
gl 
09 
cv 
cc 
CV 
if 


8 
I 


-196 
-606 
-f6g 


-c6L 
-9gil 
-9$9 
-V19 
-OLS 
-9fS 
-6zS 
-1zS 

ozS 


-VIOI 





Ape NONO.GRAP HS 









ALEXANDER HOD] 


Cs Re Sa Oda 
(v) 11 INACINL 
(OI ‘9) OI dV) NVIDAUHd 

(g ‘S) o1 LOWIGH NVINOGHOVIN 

g 074A (6 ‘% ‘¥) OI YATINV 


"AOdVNV=AVV SUAVISVE” : poquosuy 
‘Oa Cze pue Hz v9419 ‘Fy dnoiyn 


4 (Or 2'6)-61 26% UAAINO GNV MOG Zh -ggII 

e (ZIP G. - OSG SOHOVWOUd SVTIVd 99 -OOII 
4A 03.4 (11 ‘69 ‘S).6 69¢ AvVIdOoNNUOD LO -CPoOI 
“MOLIpUoD Id JTW PIPY UT ‘adg = ‘ON 


"AOd VNV=AVV SUSAVISVE J0 SUAVISVE AOdVNV=AVYV 
: poquiosuy 


‘2 ‘a Sze p9419 ‘cy dno1y 











31 


DEMANHUR 


“SpIVMUMOP IO ‘YYBII 04 ‘}JO] OF OPIS BABOUOD S}I YIM poyUssoidal st JUBDSEIO OY, x 


CIT ZE 005 A 
(1) £1 6$¢ 
(Ve 10% JJ 


TAUMAVI AO DIAdS 
TAUMNAVI AO DIAdS 
« LNAOSHUO 


(z1) zi zZS‘olS J} 40‘, ‘,| AMTAVA AO UVa 


Rel ie2ee 


AHTAVA HO AVA 


‘2UO1Y} Y} RIN g *pjey ut poquiss 


‘H dnoiryn se peqtisosuy 
‘2 ‘ad GIF pue Oz! pI419 ‘f dnoir 
(oI ‘g) ZI 098 
(G5) Sho Oe 
Gat ee coe 
"H dnory se poeqriiosuy 
‘Od Ize pue zze vI419 ‘J dnoin 


EE of fol 


QI 
I 
ZI 
Ol 
5 


9z 
tz 
i 


-Vo9S 1 
CoCI 
-1SCT 
-1VS1 
-QeCI 


-Z1SI 


-Sgvl 
-1ZV1 


AND MONOGRAPHS 











ALEXANDER HOARD 





d 
“uoryIpuod 





— 3) 
— LoS aad 7 
‘gq dnoin | 
(S$) 91 zl KA 
(F) 91 988 aSOU GNV aga 
(€) 91 9€8 LJ ¢ 
‘y dnoin 
‘Ioye] IO °D “a OZE 04 QE D949 
‘VITAd : JULY 
"VINOGAOV IN, 
QI 68g V wd I 
aed “19 [NIA ‘auoi1y) Yeausg ‘play uy ‘vad 


"H dnory se poqriosuy 
‘Da git vos19 Sy dnoiy 








-LOS1 
-COSI 


-16S1 


-9gSI 
-£QSI 


zQSI 
We 





NUMISMATIC NOTES 











33 











DEMANHUR 





BUI}IGIUXS PUB SUL] Jopeoiq SuiAey ul g6SI—L6SI 


a — 
a aye 
A —— 
A —— 
I ¢ ‘III 
A — 
A —aa 
4 0} DA (9) 91 
A : é ‘TIT 
A Teed 





‘q dnoin 


— V 
86 WOINVYONA 


‘o[AJS POOURAPB dIOW AT}YSIYs 
‘SOU WOOL] SloyjIp AJOIVA STUT, y 


“VY *vdavolo 
“qd ‘INaaIaL 


aad 


INAGIUL 
(‘] 07 8uléy) aaa 


— ‘IOAOOSPEYM YICW JUTUL ON 


LOI PAC) 
‘cy dnoin 
oe ) 


Had 


- 





Cc 
c 


€ 
Z 


‘JJO] OY} 0} SOV] SOPOVIOPF{ JO PVOY OY} SOIJOLIVA OMY SUTMOTI[OJ 94} UO 


-ClOI 
-[fgI 


oral 
ItgI 
-QzQI 


~bzg1 


CzgI 
-VogI 


-1091 
-66S1 






Pelee ONO G.R:A PHS 











34 ALEXANDER VOM 





DA I ‘SAT ‘(2 ‘1) 91 ~LEQ SWAV GHHOLAULSLINO HLIM HLAOA 


‘NOAOIS : 4UITA 
"SASHNNOAOTE G 





HA 03 4 CLV OLS eles SV 
{UIT UTeyJ00U- 


LHWNTAH SILLY 


“AIVSSHHT YO VINOGHOV]/ 


a sats BS leak LIOGUAGNAHL 
*q dnorn 
a —- — ‘V ‘vdavolo 
“UOT}IPUoD Iq “ATW "auosy} YLoUEg "PPy uy 
AOLLLULIVI : poqruosuy 
‘gq dno 





eps 


Ol 


1 
‘gadg 


-6791 


-6f91 


gtol 


Lgl 
Le 








NUMISMATIC NOTES 











35 


DEMANHUR 


we 


DA 





(bv) 41 — WY samondvo 
(11) 41 — bd AaXaL Wivd 

— — HH SHNWaaH 
(c1) 41 — +: SaWNuaH 


“SJUTP SHOLIE A 


‘SILNOdOUd AHL AO NOIOAYY 


Set ore aTHIHS NVINOGHOVN 
‘AjUO AOdVNV=AVYV : pequosuy 
(ol) 91 — ATHIHS NVINOGHOVIN 
“AOd VNV=AVV SUSVISVE : poquosuy 


(g) 91 — 


AATAVA AO AVA 
e 
(6) 91 — 


daVadH S,LvO9 


IY He eS oe 


Ceol 
PggI 
gol 
-9lgI 


-CL9I1 


zLgl 


-o/gI1 
-L991 


eto MONO GR A PHS 











ALEXAN DERV@HOGH o> 


fe 


qd 01a 


"UOHTPUoD 


(wij Or: ot # 


6 


ae DECI SITAOSIUL 


dadVaH VAHLIN 





(1) Zt . 26 “rea WOINVUONA 
‘Da zt 03 CCE vI109 
‘SHGUVS : UIT 
'VIGA’T 
(or 6) ZI 262 o SINALUV 


‘a[A4s I07e] JO ynq surpsoaid oy 04 JeTTUIIS 


(Sent Loe S SINALUV 
Cy See SINGLUV 
~‘AI — sangaonadvo 
‘Iq = “ABT[NIN ‘QUOIY] YJeauEg ‘play uy 


QV 


CI 
Z 


i} 
‘sadsg 


oSZI 
Ori 
QvLi 


-zoLI 


-6891 
-Lgg1 


989I 
Be 


op) 
a 
oH 
s 
Z 
oO 
— 
ee 
< 
a 
op 
= 
ae 
Z 











36 


























es 
4A 01 DA (v) o€ ofS IV HLVaUM 
"AOdVNV=SVV SUAVISVG” : poquosul 
‘AGIS UO SITASVHd : UTI 
ie ‘VIIAHANVd YO VIOAT 
P la PENG Bes A 
os d (01) g1 6681 @® (3) 
oo tae (cx) gt — KI 
Ss ” (11) gi an ic 
z d 0} HA (6) gl — AATAVA AO AVA 
A a (or) 6z O1 ko NAWTOA 
a PN NaWTOA a 





‘Joyey Jo ‘oz’ 07 OLE 9419s” 
‘SOLATIN : JUTT 
‘VIUVO 


gol 





-6191 


-CIQI 
-g6L1 
-b6L1 


CLL 


-CCLI 
-CCLI 
-1CLI 





AND MONOGRAPHS 








ALEXANDERVHOSAiaE 


38 


d) 
4A 01 J 


“worIpuoD 





rae 


“AOULIVIO SOAVISVE : 


Abe 
I a 
(g) 08 
(Z) of 
(9) of 
(S) of 


‘aie d 


CCl 


gLVI 


cQvl 
CQvl 
Liz 
QIz 
“42112 IN 


(3) 


V 
=V 
AV 


9) 


9 


2g 
rd 
IV 


‘2U01Y) YJ eaUAg 





pequosuy 


Pray au 


z 
Zz 
3 
VI 
z 
9 
CI 
a 


‘oadsg 


€L61 


-1Z61 
-6961 
-9961 
-cC61 
-oS61 
-vr61 
-6z61 


-Cz6I 
ve 





NUMISMATIC ONG 


DEMANHUR 








4d 0} M (Si Olwe (qoTJad JO 19949] OU) 9 
« FT BULNYO », 

x CRO oA . V LI 
. es ee O1 
55 — L ° i I 
CLL) paaeG % ha 
¥ — ¢ re INAGIUL ¢ 
” (z) 61 © Vv z9 

107 M (1) 61-1 : 9 

“UOI}IPUuODd ‘O12 q ‘“]JEMAON ‘“sneZ pulysq ‘auoiy} y}esueg ‘play uy ‘sads 


bai Vs UP EO) 93 
"2 "A Bzl 0} CLE vo119 ‘soles ISIN. 
"“SASUVL : QUIT 
Pvioci) 


-0602 


-[Loz 
-£907 

ZQOT 
-CVoz 


-cvoz - 


-Og61 
-bL61 
fond 





eee MONOGRAPHS 











ALE XAN D E RVR RD 


9 
407 M 
"WOrIPUoD 


(g) 02 


(£) oz 
(1) 02 


(Z) O€ 
(V) 0z 
(S$) oz 


(S) 61 
(-) 61 


gf 
cc 
ve 
cc 
ze 
of 
6z 
Le 
Qc 
Cz 
Iz 
Oz 


8 ” 
SHdVuo JO HONNE # 
(spremuMop) 
(qystidn) ava AAI H 


9) ” 


) 9 


(O) %) 


4 9) 
g ‘J MO'ld 


‘a DzL 03 Lee v9419 ‘satIag puodEs 


OI 
a 


g 


dq 


O1e[q “[[PMON ‘snez7 purysagq ‘suo yJLeusg ‘pray ut 








Cz 
99 


‘vadg 


-77LT 
-C1fz 
-C1CZ 
rat he 2 
-OICZ 
60¢z 
-CQzz 
-7£7Z 
-Q7CS 
-961z 
-L61Z 
-LQ1z 


-ZQIZ 
-960z 
on 











NUMISMATICON Gi 





41 





DEMANHUR 





9 


dq Ola 


) 
4A 01 a 
“uollIpuod 


(PPC, 
=e 

(Oy 1c cs 
— 1 

— 6 
Grete 57 
(2). Teele 
COj=teacy 
(SIs LEO? sky 
(O01) of ov 
(O),0040:. 


"AIL “TPMeN 


(‘Ago uo d) ) 
J 
Sh 


”) 


) 


i) 


My Hao 
Germ 
2d s ee 


ep ke 


Sees nay 


Se af 
0 ‘NW 
M4 
t 


9) 


0 


“2UOIY} YI LOUD g 


” 
MOTd 
Bd eas A) 


“AOdVNV=AVV SUAVISVE” : poqrosuy 


"D "a GIF 03 EZE 9419 ‘satIEg pry, : 


APD MONOGRAPHS 


ALEXAN DE RBE UA 


42 


a : — 0g agqanu 1 brsz 


“AOLLLUIVId SOAVISVE : poquosuy 
‘J ‘a OZE 19419 JOYTe ‘TT Setsag 


402 DA (cI) 12 — (osre] pue oyisodutoo) ,, $f -6gbz 

6 (41) az “Zect ig Let? PE Veer’ 

DA 0} M (O1) IZ ggzi g (epsoduios) Mod 6 -9t bz 
“19T1N 


"2 "a OZ 0} OLE 09419 “T Satta 
‘SINVIVS : JUIT 





"SAUdAD 

be | (S$) 1c 6¢ 9) 9 9) = ; 9) 8 -3zv~ 

dq 01 4 — gf J snaondvo 8 ‘EQ ‘AMIN €¢ -Czvz 
*uOI}IPUOD "Ie “[]PMON *3U01Y} Y}eouag "play. uy ‘oadS ‘ON 


NUMIUSMATWICG Nats 


aa 
= 
a 
Zz 
< 
= 
— 
A 








‘ens1exe 8} UI sivodde 191}¥e] 94} pue posodsuev1y 
ae ZUAVIZVA YY} PuUe LOUVNVEAVV 4} oMsst sty} jo asoj[d oy} SpIeMOT, x 
DA VA ERI aAoa I L992 


"2 ‘ad Sze 03 OLE 9419 ‘T sorties 
‘SOHdVd : JUTT 
(6) 1% v6zI 1 gt 
» SUOAVISVE AOdVNV=SVV : pequosuy (q 


(g) 12 v6z1 Tbe ge 
Be eee Ses a 
“SUAVISVE (795) Od VNVEAVV : poquosuy (fe 


"2 "ad OZE 0} ZEE 99419 


‘WAILIO : JUIT 


me OPM ONOGRAPHS 





ALEXAN DE Ritii@yae 


aga 


ad 07 HA 


A 
A 


a 
“UOTIpuoD 








44 





I‘TA — 4 Ue «CNY «~pue AAOd ONIATA 
“AOU VNV=AVV SUAVISVE : poquosuy 
‘Jaqyey] JO “D "a Bze 09419 “JT Sattas 
‘SAHLVNV : JUTT/[ 

(Vel ATTAVA AO UVa a 

— zo OludS TAUNVI Mw 
“SUAVISVE AOdVNVEAVYV : poquosuy 


‘Ioye] pue O7¢ 09419 “TIT soses 


(2RD ers aad 4 

(¢) gi — asou = 

(1) gle wy 
‘a1e[q “ANN ‘QUOIY} Y}eouNg ‘prey uy 


‘2 ‘a OZE 04 SZ M9419 ‘TT Serta 


Ll 








op) 
ca 
Ss 
O 
Zz 
O 
S 
< 
a 
op) 
a 
=) 
Za 





45 








De HeM AGN: H UR 











OVI sagonavo €  -9giIlz 
(2) IIOS : 4UIT!Y 

(S) g1 — NAWINA I Side 

‘SO4AVISVE AOdVNV=AVYV : poqiosuy 


‘WOTYVIN : JUTSA 


(21) 08° = (a]A}s 10}e]) ,, v “112% 
Rigs ° I o1dz 
ard gas Fas ° ” c -goLz 

(11) 0¢ — | ap ae -Colz 


oe ae , MOUYd OI -bggz 
‘AjU0 AOdVNV=AVY : poqtosuy 


~*~ ¢ 


‘Oa See M9419 Io4ye ‘TT SOLIesS 


AND MONOGRAPHS 








ALEX AN DER Gea hei 


46 





4101 9A 


402 DA 


Nee 
“uorTpUuoD 


(2):OR are WV Dp 
"“AOdVNV=AVV SUAVISVE” : poqrosuy 
‘Dd QZL 04 QzE 09419 “TIT SaLIES 


BGs ‘W ” 
(9) 61 61 IN Dp 


(7918) OA VNV=EAVYV SUAVISVE” : poquosuy] 


"2 "a OZE 09419 ‘TT SeLIES - 


(LJ) ho = Si W ” 
"+A = NOIdaOOS 
1E[q “[]aMIN *2U01Y} Y}eIUE play uy 


"D ‘ad OLE 03 CLE 09429 ‘T Sales 
‘SQUCGNVIVAN : YUTTY 
‘VIUAS NYHHLYON 


v 


1d 


c 
‘oads 


-99Lz 


-bblz 
-cblz 


-17lz 
-61Lz 
ie 





NUMISMAT1C NOTE 











47 


DEMANHUR 


dq 01 a 


4 07 DA 


ON, 


(Olj Olas. WW 


Na 


"“AOdVNV=4AVV SUAVISVE” : poqitosuy 


"2 ‘d@ OZ 04 CZE M9419 “A SATIBS 


(6) Oles6z ie WE pue Dp 
a Qe i pue Ce 
— \W I~ pue Pp 
"Da CZ 01 QZl 09429 ‘AT SELIG 
{TP),0% 00 \W WA 
‘Ajuo AOdVNV=AVV : poqiosuy] 
aoe W MM 


‘MOdVNV=AVV SUAVISVE : pogtosuy 


(g) 61 zz VV 
‘AtuO AOdVNV=4VV : poqiosuy] 


bp 


OI 


bz 


Qc 


-¢19z 


-698z 
-V98z 
-CEQ7 


-OZ8Z 


-96Lz 


-oLlz 


fea weev Oo NOG RAP HS 





ALEXAN DE RWG. 





DA 


DA 


bP) 
JA 
"WOTIPUoD 


— SPlI 


VV 


“TN 
"2 "a OFF 04 ZC vI419 ‘T sottlag 


Cth oe 


“SNOSVNVA = JUTTAL 
“VINYAS—A THO?) 


A 


X ¥ 


‘(¢) AOAANVA-SITOdVUGIH : YUTTAL 


— &¢ 


W ‘V7 
am: 


W 


SUAVISVE AOLLLUIVI® : poquosuy 
"D ‘a OIE 04 OZE 09419 ‘TA SaTIASG 


A pots 
— ef 
"aIV[q [PMN 


os 
W 


‘IUOIY} Y}eIUs 


Drea y 








48 








W 
Md 


= 


= 


c 
c 


‘oads 


-2687 


L682 


9g6gz 
C6gz 


-£6gz 
-16gz 
fais 





NUMISMATICGCON Ta. 














49 


DEMANHUR 


eB & & 


DA 0} M 


IVCI VY 
ZVCI YY 
= WV 
oe WN 
_ WV 
= VV 
ovcl yey 
6LCI VeV 
Qtcl VV 


joqurAs ON 


bP 


WVa 


— S19}}9] JO joquiAs ON 


‘2 ‘a OIL 09419 04 ‘TT SOLIOS 


QVel VV 
—— VV 
eed VV 


ny = 


-oSce 
-LVZE 

gbze 
-vrze 
-IQI¢ 
-CLI¢ 
-1S0¢ 
-9l6z 
-616z 
-L16z 


-O16z 
60672 
-(06z 


AND MONOGRAPHS 


ALEXANDER HOARDS 


40} M 


HA 


bh} 
@ 0} JA 
"WoLIpuo| 





50 


iy egos V cael Pia Lae 
“2 "ad OFL 9429 04 ‘T Satta 


“SNAVUAV : 4UIY 


C1) ee yes ggzr 
“SUSAVISVE AOdVNVE=SVY : poqiosuy 
(2) Gis = > ae Loze 


‘ANUVO : JUIJ 


‘LSVOD NVIOINSOHG AH], 





(9) Sz eI OY * LY Ooze 
(vy) Sz — VV WVa Zz -Sze 
‘aIe[q “JINN ‘gUuO1Y} YOUNG ‘play uy ‘oads ‘ON 


NUMISMATIC WOE 


a 


Sl 


DEMANHUR 





4 04 DA 











Fore, 
(Z1) 2 
CLIsce 

(Tee 

(01 6) ee 
(g ‘L) zz 
(9) zz 


BOtI 
Coll 
ZOCI 
potl 
OOtI 


a 
d 
Wee 


(G :oSsIoAqo uO) I 


‘BUAVISVE AOdVNVEAVY : poquosuy 


(S) zz 
(Vv) zz 


‘Qa GIL 09419 0} ‘TI] SOLES 


c 
IN %3 II 


(vy :aszaaqo uo) © 


‘2 'd Qzl DIAII 04 “TT SOTIOS 


-CCVe 
-O£ PE 
-Leve 
-Cot¢? 
-OSe’ 
-PEC’ 
-Cole 
COC. 


_-00¢¢ 


-69z¢ 
-QRee 





AND MONOGRAPHS 


wn 
A 
faa 
< 
© 
a 
faa 
al 
a 
Za 
= 
rm 
Ga 
4 
< 


d 0} 4 (Vireo eS Let (oJ43s JozeT) ,, 62 


‘202 DA V ‘TA (Z) zz = SLEI vy 


‘yopoureIpy jo oureu oy} Ur ‘JJ sores 


wl hae ef 
‘snjAuq jo oureu oy} ur “T sorted 


“SOTAAD : QUIT 


(vy) €z oL€1 samondavd 611 


AHA 03 A (CECA IOUL a Oe 
“UOI}Ipuodd *a1e[q “IIT [NIN ‘gu01Y] YJVIUNg ‘pley uy ‘vadg 


NUMISMATIC NOTE. 





i i 


DEMANHUR 


9) 


9A OF M 


) 


DA 01 M 


(g) €z 91 Is 
(oa Se SS = 
Dic Ofer “{Iesopios 
ORs cA Te c 
(Z) VZ g x 
“TT2 429 N 


‘Da 1€€ pue zee ‘7 sores 
‘NOGIS : JUIJ 
(01) of — o 
‘NIVIMAONN : UIT 
ITA Qlel Sek IV 
‘Dd OZL 09419 
"SOLANA : QUIT 


” 


AHdOUL 


9g ‘O 


CI 
II 


-Gzle 
-ZQ9L 


-L99¢ 
-9SQt 


-bSgr 


CCot 


we eMONOGRAPHS 


ip) 
~% 
x 
‘S) 
on 
aa 
aa 
aa 
Zz 
= 
x 
ea 
H+ 
x 





d 0} JA 


(Ta ce 
(O1) ¢z 
(6) °z 


¥ (Lyte 
J 0} 9A (9) tz 


1b |= 
"AOLLLUIVIG : poqriosuy 
"D “d It 04 OZ ‘A Saag 
6¢ “ 


ve |= 

"‘) “A OZ 04 CZE “AT Sottes 
ras 

Qz 

Vz 


Fate |= 
“+ ‘a. coe 07 LOS “TT sehes 


Oz |= AATIVD 
QI = AVAT AAI 


“uoljIpuosd 212d “[]2MON ‘2u01Y} YJeaueg *pley uy 


NUMISMATICUNO TE. 








DEMANHUR 


DA 


DA OF M 


d 0} JA 


(Z)Ves OF aL 62 
“Da LZt 09119 “TTT Sota 


(9) bz 9 a 
‘) "a Gel 0} OZE 09419 ‘TT SOTIES 
(vy) bz + Uz 
(So) Poo’ W 
a : W 
CC) vouet LIOGUAGNOHL 


‘D ‘a OLE 0} ZEE 9419 ‘JT SATIS 
‘AMV > QUIS 


em Gest 4 a 
— ty j= 


Wt O 


-Logte 


-Cog’ 


-g6L¢ 
-[QLE 
-LLLE 
-69L¢ 


gglt 
-99L¢ 








Ao ONOGRAPHS 





ALEX AN D ER eA 


56 


9) 
407 DA 
“uorupuod 


‘TIA 1% 
— I1¢ a 
— 62 re 
cera 3 N 
— vz 


. ITT 11 11 
gees TLTe at ICA TY 
5» =i Wi 
ss ais aie 
ALS rin 


] 


I 


‘D "ad BIL 0} OZ poqep ‘A SdaLIaS 


(Ol) ve 7z 

— oz 

(GQ) Woos ot 

— TI 

CR aaa 
"21R[q “[]2MIN 


‘QUOIY] YeIUIG 


» =U I 
» =Till 
9 = III 
9 = II 
. = 
aL = 
“ete aT 


‘ ‘da 1Z€ 03 9zL poyep SAT Sette 


N = CO mm SES 


-¢L6¢ 
ZL6e 
-b96¢ 
CQb6e 
-196¢ 


-bS6¢ 
-Cp6e 
-£COC 
-916¢ 
-606£ 
-96g¢ 


NUMISMATICONG TEs 


af 


DEMANHUR 


107 M 
DA 01 M 


DA 


(g) pi feline ee ” d 
Ma ae W 
“2971 
"2 ‘a 62 03 ILC vI429 ‘T SoltES 


‘NOTAGVA : JUT 


‘VINOTAEVG 





(6) of E  ‘HLVAUM 
‘Atuo AOdVNV=AVV : poquosuy — 

(9) ZI TIMGNAL HLIM SHdVaD AO HONNA 

‘SO4AVISVE AOdVNV=AVYV : poqiosuy 

(S) ZI TIMGNAL HLIM SHdvVaD AO HONNE 
‘ISV] AZHL NI SINIJ NIVLYAONQ 


bb 
A: 


-£Q6C 
-Og6¢ 


6L6¢ 
gZ6t 


-9l6¢ 


AND MONOGRAPHS 





ALEXAN DER HOR is 


DA 0} A 
"UOLIIpUod 





(9) 92 
(O1) 92 
(V) 92 
(S) 9z 
(2) 92 


(z1) Sz 
(11) $z 


(6) Sz 


(O1) $z 
‘a1e[d 


Vg9 s AVIS gI 
669 xe NIHd1oad 6 
—- Re (‘[ Jo 104) aula ZI 
— 4 HLVauM O61 
L69 W ‘«h4 AGA gz 
‘2 "a Qzt 0} 6zE 9419 “TT satreg 
Cog W ‘o oI 
— W (sored of[Ays) ,, 2 
— O\ladS IHUNVI ,, 5, Pa 
— INS OI p ee clare Sue 
— NiHd'IOd - =), 2 5, sass | 
— NVIAS “Ge oe, ea 
— Sddvao JO HONDA JOAO J > S$ 
‘ITN "2U0LY} YJVIUag ‘play uy ‘sads 


*PpOJIOAUL SI SOU} JV WeIZOUOU SIU y 


-9zIV 
-LIIV 
-CoIv 
-9g0V 
-gCop 


-gbor 
-1v0v 
-glov 
-blor 
Cor 
zlor 
-Lzov 
On 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 








59 


DMA NH UR 


HA 07 DA 


AUTAVd AO UVa 
LTOPddaNoAnL 
LNad ads 
INHOIaL 
SNHONAVO 

° 


W 
Wy 


WK 
XNIHdS 


(¢) ava NVWOH 
AVAT KAI 
Sadvao 

- ATAOIS 

asou 

XITAM 

HOUOL 


ep 
a8) 
Ay 
< 
m4 
oO 
O 
vA 
O 
a 
a) 
Zz 
< 








ALEXAN DE RVUs 


60 


BASOVIA 
“uonTpuod) 


(€) 92 
(I) 92 
(Z) 92 
(Z) ge 


(Ly-be 
(9) Lz 
(Z1) 92 
Cee 
WA ge 
CIjawe 


aed 


102 
£89 


EASIUE SIAN 





PA W 


2 (joqurAs ow) 
ao NAIA 5, 
3» SOROOdVO.-;, 
», aNd (endsoxe uy) 
ss NOIT 
FF WOAINVYONd 
‘ij HOUOL ONIOVA 
e AUYLSATdAV 
2 WAITOLSOXDV 
# dTVOS S,NOIT 
3 HOH 
& SINALUV 
W ‘A AMIN 


‘QUOIY} YBAUIg “pley uy 











I 


OO = = se ee HOO DO A 
—_ 


— 


II 


‘2adg 


-1fCV 
-Cccey 
-QI¢tV 
-OO¢L 
-b6zv 
Cozv 
zOcv 
16cP 
o6zP 
6gzV 
-197V 
-glzv 
-vLzv 
-[gzv 
oN 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 











DEMANHUR 


” (Z) gz Lod a , “snatia “Li “-Szbp 
9 (11) gz ogg » JINAGINL -1zbV 
53 — 969 he * qqq I1 -oiby 
n (Z1) gz 969 i » NIHaIoad Zz -90bb 
3 (Ol) cae * 5, samonava 9 ~ -zobP 
r {1} 6Z, = 3 i; XITAM II -16¢P 
39 (0) San ° - AvIs € -ggey 
” <= es fe - HOUOL Zz -9gtV 
» — 269 a »  Saavio PI -2ZLer 
” —) s£0L v SO Lae TE ISae lis eater 

(O)Gc econ “ 5 td AVE. 8 -CSoP 

(S) gz zg9 .9 $12 MIO OR carer 

(z) 6% ‘egol es Wpue aoH z_ -€ber 














‘2 ‘ad PZ 0} Qzt V9419 ‘TTT SolIES 





meee MONOGRAPHS 








n 
a 
faa 
“a 
O 
ic 
ad 
ca 
a) 
Z 
< 
ae 
= 
4 
< 








”? 
d 01 4 
“UONIPUoD 


INACIIL 

samonavo 

XVIAN 

VIS 

HOUOL 

= SHdVUD 
— ATNOIS 
(£) 62 — » (2) ava 
(PV) 02) == W pue sat 


‘SOAVISVE AOdVNV=AVV : poquosuy 
"2 ‘a €zE 04 VZE 09419 “AT Soltesg 


— — - NAWTAA 
(8) 8% 989 A W AMIN 


‘aq “AI [NIN ‘QUOIY} YLIUag “play uy 








+ 
OI 


‘gadg 


-cvvV 
-Z7¢VV 
cone 














NUMISMATIC NO PES 


63 


PMA N HUR 


9) 


d 0} HA 


ad 07 HA 


dita Ma kL 
‘SUAVISVE AOLLLLIVIG : poquosuy 
‘2 ‘ad GIL 07 OZE 09119 “TA SETIIS 


N pue 1daHM 


(S) 6z or J > 
(9) 6% Vol ry i 
"SOSVISVA AOLLLIVID : poquosuy 
(G%o)- Ge. Chet AV W 


‘SUOSAVISVE AOdVNV=AVY : poqriosuy 


"2H OZ 0} CZ 0I4I9 “A SOTIIS 


Es zl9 ” ” 
2 a ee ” ” NAHWTOA 


— PS W pue aXIN 


57 


LY 


cl 


-ZOOV 


1091 
-COcy 
-9cSV 


-OLV0 


-LovV 


99bV 
Covr 


Pees OONOGRAPHS 


ALEXANDER iO yi 


64 


dt TILA Oh) OG RIO9 Ne sasvoud 
a CTIA — |\V AWTAVA AO AVA 
+ (14): 6a 42 IV LIOGUaAGNAHL 
” (ct)-Oe. 21st Vv WONH™M 
” (¢) o£ zI o1V aASOW 
d 0} JA (z) oe — JoV asou 
‘VIMGNVXATV : JUITT 
‘LdADY 
a — 62 lA LJ pue TaaHM 
a — vz Nea TARHM 


*UOljIpUuos 33eR[g “1I[NI QUOI} Yeaued "prey uy 


C gz-ezgt 


Zz 
6¢ 
ce 
DCI 
Y 


I 
¢ 


‘oadg 


-OZ8P 
-1QLP 
-gbLvV 
-VI9v 
-O19v 


6091 


-909V 
oe 


NUMISMA TIC ON Ga 








DEMANHUR 


65 





MACEDONIA. 
Mint: AMPHIPOLIS. 
Groups A to K, Nos. 1 to 1582 inclusive. 


That the coins forming the above eleven 
groups belong together, and represent the 
issues of a single mint, has been demon- 
strated in the present writer’s “‘ Reattri- 
bution of Certain Tetradrachms of Alex- 
ander the Great”’.° As there pointed out, 
these coins all show one tradition of art 
and manufacture, and reveal a steady pro- 
gression (one can hardly call it progress) 
in style. The individual members of each 
group are closely bound together, inter se, 
by the frequent use of a common obverse 
die; the larger groups, in their turn, are 
also linked together in the same manner. 
In other words, group ‘A’ will possess cer- 
tain dies that were used in its production 
and then were continued in use, in a slightly 
more worn condition, for group‘ B’. Group 
‘B’,in turn, will be found to possess cer- 





Peete aN OG RA PHS 


66 


ALEX AN DERYE OAR: 


tain obverse dies that had already been 
used for ‘A’, and others that were later 
used for ‘C’, and so forth. Since the pub- 
lication of that study, a great many addi- 
tional cases of such use in common of ob- 
verse dies between the component members 
of a single group, as well as between group 
and group, have turned up. These facts, 
taken together, prove beyond a doubt that 
these coins are all the issues of a single 
mint. 

Little change has been made in the ac- 
tual grouping of the varieties and their 
sequence. This can be more or less accu- 
tately determined by noticing the inter- 
change of dies, the development of style 
and technique, and the average amount of 
circulation exhibited by the various groups 
contained in such a hoard as that of De- 
manhur. 

Reasons of style, the find spots of cor- 
responding subsidiary denominations, the 
close connection with and continuation of 
the monetary issues of the previous reign, 
and the re-issue of posthumous silver with 
types of Philip II, all prove that the mint 














NUMISMATIC NOGO@ZES 





. EL ee 


DEMANHUR 67 





which struck coins Nos. I to 1582 was sit- 
uated within the boundaries of Macedonia. 
At the time the monograph above men- 
tioned was written, the choice lay between 
Pella the capital and Amphipolis the larg- 
est port and the centre of the silver mining 
industries. The writer inclined towards 
Pella as the probable mint, but expressed 

|the conviction that Amphipolis7 could pre- 
sent as good a claim. However, a contin- 
ued and detailed study of the numerous 
later coinages of the same mint appear to 
prove conclusively that it was located in 
Amphipolis and not in Pella. At present 
it is not advisable to enter upon a neces- 
sarily lengthy discussion of the pros and 
cons, since this would demand the study 
of hundreds of coins not in the Demanhur 
hoard and thus take us outside the limits 
originally set for this article. 

The dates previously proposed for these 
Macedonian issues by the writer, in his 
“Reattribution of Certain Tetradrachms 
of Alexander the Great,’ must now be dis- 
regarded. At that time he followed the 
accepted authorities’ in the interpretation 














ANDY MONOGRAPHS 





68 ALEXAN DERG OGM RAs 


of the dates found on the Ake issues. Fur- 
ther studies,? however, revealed the indis- 
putable fact that these dates are in error 
by some fourteen years, and this discovery 
throws out all previous calculations con- 
cerning the dates of the contemporaneous 
Macedonian issues. 

The dates here assigned the various 
groups of the Amphipolis coinage are, per- 
haps, to a certain extent approximate. But 
even so, they cannot be in error by much 
more than a year either way. The com- 
mencement of the coinage is determined by 
the accession of Alexander, its termination 
—so far as our hoard is concerned —by 
the latest date'® found on the accompany- 
ing issues of Sidon and Ake. Between 
these limits the material has been divided 
in such a way that, up to the two or three 
years immediately preceding the actual 
burial, the average annual production, in 
both quantity of coins and number of dies, 
is reasonably distributed. Naturally some 
years would witness a greater production 
than others, and full account has been 
taken of this possibility. The two final 
























NUMISMATIC NOTES 






























DEMANHUR 





groups were left out of consideration be- 
cause of the apparently general law ob- 
servable in coin hoards that, for perfectly 
natural reasons, the issues contemporary 
with the burial are usually comparatively 
scantily represented. That the working of 
this law should be noticeable in the present 
case is all the more likely, as our mint was 
|situated in Macedonia and the hoard was 
buried in Egypt. Also, certain material 
at the writer’s disposal would tend to show 
that groups J and K, and probably also I, 
were originally much larger than our find 
would seem to indicate. That the dates 
here assigned to groups A, B, C, and D are 
approximately correct is confirmed by the 
Kyparissia hoard recently published." 

In looking over the issues of the Am- 
phipolis mint, as presented to us by the 
Demanhur hoard, we are naturally im- 
pressed by their quantity, continuity and 








evident importance as compared with the 
coinages of the remaining mints. In fact, 
they form at least one third of the entire 
hoard and outnumber the representatives 
of any other one mint. This is especially 





PeneleeviaOen OC) GiRsA PHS 








70 


ALEXAN DE REE Oka 





to be noticed as the accumulation was no 
doubt largely made in Egypt where it was 
eventually buried. The number of dies 
used at Amphipolis also surpasses that 
found for any other place at this period. 
It will be recognized, therefore, that Am- 
phipolis must have been the most impor- 
tant mint of the entire empire, not only 
during Alexander’s lifetime, but also 
throughout the greater portion of his suc- 
cessor’s reign. 

Before closing our notes on the Amphi- 
polis coinage, as represented in the Deman- 
hur hoard, it is necessary to correct an 
error which crept into the writer’s previous 
list of the varieties coming to him from 
that find. The tetradrachm illustrated on 
Plate 17, No. 3, is now known never to have 
been in the find. By mistake it had found 
its way into the lot purchased from M. 
Bourgey by the writer and so was included 
by him in his catalogue. It was not until 
too late that his suspicions, aroused by the 
divergent appearance of the piece and its 
anomalous presence in such an early hoard, 
were confirmed by M. Bourgey. The coin 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 












DEMANHUR 













had come to him at about the same time 
as the Demanhur pieces, but from another 
source. 






MACEDONIA. 






Mint: PELLA. 






Groups A to F, Nos. 1583 to 1638 inclusive. 


These coins must also constitute the 
issues of a single mint, as many of their 
types are connected by identical obverse 
dies. We find several instances where an 
earlier reverse die has had its symbol or 
monogram partially erased (leaving suffi- 
cient traces, however, to enable us to 
determine the variety) and a later one sub- 
stituted. There is, in addition, an unmis- 
takeable continuity of style throughout the 
series. 

The mint itself must have been situated 
in Macedonia. Not only do the coins 
themselves show many affinities in style 
with the Amphipolis issues, but the ac- 
companying subsidiary bronze coins are 
almost exclusively found in Macedonia or 
Thessaly. Certain posthumous staters, 





















AND MONOGRAPHS 













Ta 


ALEXANDER HOARDS 


tetradrachms and smaller denominations 
of the Philip II type are known which bear 
the same monograms or symbols as our 
tetradrachms and show the same stylistic 
peculiarities.'2 It is obvious that the post- 
humous silver issues of the Philip type 
could only have been issued in Macedonia 
and, possibly, Thessaly. The demand for 
this type of coin was apparently confined 
to Macedonia, Greece, and the northern 
barbarians. The last named seem to have 
especially favored this type of coin and it 
was no doubt largely for their special ben- 
efit that these posthumous issues were 
made. There must also have been a cer- 
tain continued demand for them in Hellas 
itself, for the posthumous types are well 
represented in the Lamia hoard (preserved 
in the Athens collection) and in two small 
hoards from Central Greece now in the 
writer’s possession. Others were contained 
in the Andritsaena (Peloponnesus) hoard,"3 
the second Megara hoard,'4 and the Killer 
hoard.'s If then we are forced to assign 
Nos. 1583 to 1638 to some mint in Mace- 
donia, only Pella can come into considera- 


NUMIS MATT CHND Tee 


DEMANHUR 


tion, for Amphipolis has already been pre- 
iempted by Nos. 1 to 1582. 

In comparing the issues of Amphipolis 
and Pella we see that the latter mint has 
by this time become of distinctly lesser 
importance than the former — which had 
not been the case under Philip II. At 
Pella under Alexander the issues them- 
selves, the dies cut, and the actual coins 
struck, are comparatively few. This is also 
reflected in the fact that at Pella only one 
annual magistrate, as a rule, supervises| 
the coinage. At Amphipolis it is evident 
that many magistrates must have func- 
tioned at one and the same time. Proba- 
bly because of the contrast in their respec- 
tive situations the Pella mint now came to 
be used more for supplying local demands, 
the Amphipolis mint for foreign commerce. 
It is a fact that while the writer has rec- 
ords of the latter’s issues being strongly 
represented in hoards from European 
Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria, Baby- 
lonia, and Persia, the Pella coins seldom 
turn up in finds made outside of Europe, 
and then only in small numbers. Inthe 


AND MONOGRAPHS 








74 






ALEXAN DE RVE OA Ra 
































European hoards, however, they are not 
uncommon. It is furthermore to be noted 
that such specimens of the Pella mint as 
did occur at Demanhur are all beautifully 
preserved, the majority hardly circulated 
at all. It is evident that they had not 
travelled much from hand to hand after 
leaving their dies. In contrast to this, 
considerable numbers of the Amphipolis 
pieces, particularly of the earlier issues, 
must by their appearance have circulated 
a good deal before they were finally con- 
signed to the ground. 


MACEDONIA OR THESSALY. 
Mint : UNCERTAIN. 
Nos. 1639 to 1648 inclusive. 


If the coins of this type were not actually 
struck at Pella, they were at least copied 
from certain issues of that mint. To be 
particularly noted is the peculiar form 
taken by the back of the throne, a type 
that is found in use on the Pella coinage 
only. If, onthe one hand, these particular 
tetradrachms, because of certain other 





NUMISMATICONG Ts 








DEMANHUR 


peculiarities, will not fit easily into the 
Pella series as we know it, on the other 
hand they could not have been struck far 
away. ‘Their late style, as well as the fact 
that all the known specimens from the De- 
manhur hoard were in fine condition makes 
it probable that they were issued about 
the time of Alexander’s death, or slightly 
later. It is quite possible that they were 
coined by Antipater, when in 322 B.C. he 
was shut up with his army in Lamia. The 
‘|probable date of their appearance, their 
comparative crudeness of style and execu- 
tion, and the fact that they imitated the 
Pella issues, makes this suggestion at least 
worthy of consideration. 


PELOPONNESUS. 
Mint: SICYON. 


Nos. 1649 to 1675 inclusive. 


In the Revue Numismatique for 1904, 
pp. 117-133, M. Babelon proposed the at- 
tribution of the first of the above types to 
Sicyon, because of the rapprochement he 
there makes between the youthful figure 


Mm NeOy MONOGRAPHS 


75 

















ALEXANDER VEO 


with outstretched arms and the later, and 
better known, representation’ of the youth 
holding a long fillet in his upraised hands. 
This figure M. Babelon calls ‘‘ Le devin de 
Sicyone”’. 

At the time of his previous article on the 
Demanhur hoard, the writer was unaware 
of M. Babelon’s attribution of these par- 
ticular coins to Sicyon, and saw in them 
only the issues of some uncertain mint in 
Macedonia or Thrace. Since then many 
new and unpublished types not in our 
hoard have come to light. They form a 
numismatic bridge between the earlier 
pieces with the “ Sicyonian divinity ” sym- 
bol and the later coins (Miller, Nos. 864- 
893) undoubtedly struck at Sicyon. As it 
is here permissible to deal only with such 
varieties as actually occurred in the De- 
manhur deposit, a study of the extremely 
interesting Alexander issues of Sicyon as a 
whole will have to be deferred to some 
future time. 

Among the most important and inter- 
esting of the coins that prove the correct- 
ness of M. Babelon’s attribution is No. 3: 







































NUMISMA T UGGN Get 











DEMANHUR 


Plate II. A close inspection will reveal 
that what at first seems only a flaw in the 
reverse die, immediately beneath the out- 
stretched arms of the little figure in the 
field, is in reality a flying dove somewhat 
minutely engraved. This definitely forms 
the link, hitherto missing, between the ear- 
liest and the later representations of the 
‘“Sicyonian divinity’”’, on the Alexander 
coinages. Thus we see the young god 
standing, with arms outstretched, both 
with and without the dove (Nos. I and 2, 
Plate 16), just as on the later Alexander 
issues of Sicyon he is standing holding a 
long fillet with his upraised hands. Here, 
too, the dove is sometimes present and 
sometimes absent. Certain autonomous 
bronze coins show him as on our coins of 
the Demanhur find, his arms stretched out 
in front of him as if to seize the bird, which, 
however, in this case too, is not always re- 
presented (see Babelon, /. c., p. 123, Nos. 
11 and 12). Although not aware of the 
existence of a specimen like our No. 1649, 
M. Babelon yet describes the little figure 
on this type as in the act of stretching out 

























PN PeMONOGRAPHS 











ss? 


78 











ALEXANDER Of 


$s 


his arms “‘inspiré”’ as he says, “‘ par le dé- 
sire de satstr la colombe, bien que l’oiseau ne 
soit pas figuré. Il fait le geste de vouloir 
atteindre l’otseau qui lui échappe et prend 
son vol.’ (l. ¢., p. 124.) "Now "amenec= 
men of this very type has come to light 
which actually depicts the escaping dove, 
and so proves M. Babelon quite right in 
his interesting surmise. 

The somewhat surprising position of this 
dove — beneath instead of above the god’s 
arms where one might naturally expect to 
find the bird after which he is grasping — 
can perhaps best be explained as an artis- 
tic convention. Either the field of the 
coin was felt to be too limited to place the 
dove in front of the hands (the more nat- 
ural position) or we have here to do with 
a direct copy of some well known statue 
embodying these peculiarities. In a 
statue, particularly one of marble, it would 
indeed be somewhat difficult to represent 
a bird flying unsupported in front of the 
outstretched hands of the god. It might, 
however, be represented as escaping from 
between the arms, in which case these could 








NUMISMATICAND TE oa 


EE ee a 





DEMANHUR 


be made to support the flying bird. The 
coin engraver, seriously handicapped by 
the limited space at his command and the 
insuperable difficulties of a very small bas- 
relief, would be forced to give us a repre- 
sentation of the statue as we see it on our 
coin. The result was evidently felt not to 
be a success and the dove appears on one 
die only. 

The remaining types here assigned to 
Sicyon were very poorly represented in the 
Demanhur hoard and so, perhaps, do not 
clearly reveal their connection with the 
later coins correctly given to Sicyon by 
Miller. In fact, there are too many gaps 
here to make a lengthy discussion practi- 
cal or even advisable on this occasion. 

If the contents of the Demanhur hoard 
thus give us a rather sketchy view of the 
sequence of the earlier Alexander issues of 
Sicyon, at least enough is available to 
prove that the Sicyonian mint must have 
enjoyed a certain amount of importance 
under Alexander and his successor Philip 
III. During the campaigns in Asia the 
Peloponnesus formed an important and 


AND MONOGRAPHS 





80 


ALEXAN DERE Oe 


prolific recruiting ground for the armies. 
Many mercenaries were recruited from 
among the mountaineers of this rugged 
peninsula, no doubt lured into the service 
by the dazzling prospects held out to them 
of the fabulous riches of the East so easily 
falling into the hands of Alexander’s armies. 
The famous recruiting ground of Taena- 
rum was, in fact, situated not so far away. 
An active mint, more conveniently located 
than those in distant Macedonia, was cer- 
tainly needed to supply the new recruits 
with the first installments of their pay and 
also to start them on their long voyage 
eastwards. lt must furthermore be re- 
membered that strong Macedonian forces 
were kept in the Peloponnesus during the 
war with the Spartan king Agis, and after- 
wards also, to discourage similar attempts 
at raising the standard of revolt in Alex- 
ander’s rear among the ever rebellious 
Greeks. This consideration amply ac- 
counts for an active mint at Sicyon. 





NUMISMAP1 CaN Geer: 











De hiAIN(H OLR 


REGION OF THE PROPONTIS. 
Various mints. 
Nos. 1676 to 1747 inclusive. 


The mints at which these coins were 
struck were probably no less than three in 
number. As shown by the great stylistic 
similarity of their issues, these particular 
mints must have been situated close to 
each other or were, at least, intimately 
bound together by ties of commerce. 

It is not the writer’s intention to dis- 
cuss their coinages here. The tetra- 
drachms before us fail to give any ade- 
quate idea of the large series of coins issued 
by them. These series are almost entirely 
composed of Alexander and posthumous 
Philip II staters, accompanied by unusu- 
ally extensive issues of drachms bearing 
the names and types of Alexander ITI and 
Philip III. The coinage of tetradrachms 
was both scanty and intermittent. We 
would therefore be forced to transgress 
the bounds set for this article if we were 
to discuss the issues of these mints in an 
at all adequate manner. 


Se vO NORA PHS 

















8] 





ALEXAN DE RSIEO Arr es 


Because of their style, the symbols em- 
ployed, and the find-spots of single speci- 
mens of the accompanying drachms, Nos. 
1676-1747 may in general be assigned to 
the regions bordering the Propontis. This 
embraces both the European and Asiatic 
shores. Nos. 1687-1747 Miller has already 
given to Perinthus in Thrace. Possibly 
he is correct in such an attribution, though 
the present writer would most certainly 
prefer to assign this large issue to the city 
of Lampsacus on the opposite shore. 

Now there is no question but that to 
Alexander the province of Hellespontine 
Phrygia constituted a vitally important 
portion of his empire, as through it ran 
the highway connecting him with his home 
base in Macedonia. It must therefore 
have been very strongly garrisoned. En- 
tirely aside from its strategic importance 
to the fast growing Macedonian Empire it 
was, and always had been, commercially 
most important and, therefore, very 
wealthy. Together with the Thracian 
Chersonese it commanded the famous wa- 
terway between the Aegean and the Black 





NUMISMATIC NOTES 

















DEMANHUR 


sea. The lands around the latter were, 
and had long been, the granary of Greece, 
and so through the Hellespont ran the life 
lines of Hellas. This portion of Asia Minor 
had for centuries possessed mints noted for 
their large and continuous coinage. Under 
Alexander the cities that still were allowed 





to retain their full autonomy continued to 
coin extensively, using their accustomed 
types. Among these were Cyzicus, Hera- 
clea, Chalcedon, Cius, Pergamum, and 
many others. 

The seat of the Persian government in 
these regions had been Dascylium, but we 
know of no Persian coinage having been 
struck there. Instead, the Persian satraps 
seem to have employed the convenient 
and already existing mints of Cyzicus and 
Lampsacus whenever they had occasion to 
issue money of their own. It is to this 
fact that we owe not only the many Per- 
sian types found on the electrum staters 
of Cyzicus and the gold staters of Lamp- 
sacus, but also the definitely and purely 
Persian coins evidently issued from time 
to time by these mints for satrapal pur- 











my OyMONOGRAPHS 

































ALEXANDERVHOARDS 





poses.'7 There can be no question but 
that Cyzicus and Lampsacus were the 
most important coining centres in all this 
territory. Cyzicus, however, continued 
to issue money in her own name and with 
her own types for some considerable time 
after the actual arrival of Alexander the 
Great.'® We have therefore no reason to 
expect or to look for an Alexander coinage 
in that city— particularly as Cyzicus very 
jealously guarded her cherished autonomy 
throughout these stirring times. 
Lampsacus seems to have fared differ- 
ently. A study of her autonomous coin- 
age reveals a great stylistic gap which 
cannot have commenced long after 335 
B. C. and apparently extends to about 
200 B.C. It is known that Lampsacus 
remained an important commercial centre 
throughout this period, and the apparent 
absence of any coinage is therefore highly 
significant. She had previously struck 
coins for Persian satraps, even going 
so far as to place some of their names 
(those of Orontes and Spithridates'9) upon 
them. There is every reason to believe, 





NUMISMADICAND 2: 




























DEMANHUR 





therefore, that here would be located one 
of Alexander’s important mints. This fol- 
lows not only from the fact of the city’s 
strategic and commercially important sit- 
uation, but also from the fact that she 
had recently possessed a large and active 
mint and had actually coined for Persian 
satraps. In proceeding with our study of 
Alexander’s other eastern coinages we shall 
soon come to see how significant these par- 
ticular points really are. It will be possi- 
ble to show, again and again, that certain 
central mints especially active just pre- 
vious to Alexander’s arrival were nearly 
always continued —for economy’s sake 
and because that very activity presup- 
poses some definite commercial, political, 
or strategic importance —under the new 
régime. In other words, Alexander prac- 
tically took over bodily the practices as 
well as the government and the provinces 
of the Persian Empire. 

The series at present being discussed 
has therefore been assigned to Lampsacus 
on purely external grounds. Internal evi- 
‘dences are not strongly conclusive, but, 








Mowe MONOGRAPHS 





























ALEXANDER HOARDS 





such as they are, would seem to corrobo- 
rate the attribution. The series, with its 
unusually extensive accompaniment of 
staters (Alexander and posthumous Philip 
types) and Alexander and Philip III 
drachms, is by far the largest and most 
important in all north-western Asia Minor. 
These gold issues are unusually prolific, as 
is only to be expected from a city which 
had been coining gold staters of her own 
in such abundance for so many years. One 
of the most frequently recurring symbols 
on the staters and drachms is the forepart 
of a winged horse, the peculiar emblem of 
Lampsacus. Second only to this in fre- 
quency of occurrence is a figure of Artemis, 
one of the principal and most popular di- 
vinities of the city. As stated above, Nos. 
1687-1747 had previously been assigned by 
Miller to Perinthus because of the curious 
double-horse symbol which occurs on the 
accompanying staters and is also found 
used as a type on the autonomous issues 
of that city. But these are evidently only 
magistrates’ symbols, and only one of them 
has any peculiar connection with Perin- 





NUMISMATIC NOTES 


(OE WMieAON  H UR 


thus. We have to be on our guard against 
basing an attribution on the strength of a 
single magistrate’s symbol. Furthermore, 
the symbol of the joined foreparts of a 
horse is not exclusively Perinthian. The 
Alexander tetradrachms described by Miil- 
ler under his No. 393 were, by their style, 
certainly struck beyond the Taurus. Be- 
sides, Perinthus at this time was semi-au- 
tonomous and we have no reason to look 
for an Alexander coinage here at such an 
early period. 


LYDIA. 
Mint: SARDIS. 
Circa 333-324 B. C., Nos. 1748-1750. 


Here, too, we can gain no really adequate 
idea of the importance of this series to 
which the above three scarce types belong. 
Although scores of varieties of the drachm 
and the gold stater go to make up this 
series, the tetradrachm was seldom struck 
at first and then only in comparatively 
small numbers. Among the gold staters 
accompanying this group there is but one 
which bears the name and types of Philip 


Pee ae VL OONO.GR A PHS 


87 





ALEXAN DE-ReOA Rs 


II. This shows clearly that the present 
mint must have been somewhat removed 
from the wide-spread influence of those 
famous coins. Only sporadic instances?° 
occur of these posthumous issues of Philip 
II having been coined outside of Macedo- 
nia, Thrace, and the lands bordering the 
Hellespont. 

The few specimens that have come down 
to us of the three types described above, 
apparently show that these coins were 
struck from adjusted dies. This point, 
too — the very first instance of this prac- 
tice we have so far encountered — shows 
that we are moving away from the purely 
Greek issues of Hellas, Macedonia, and 
north-western Asia Minor. We are ap- 
proaching the domains of the Persian 
Daric and Siglus. The use of fixed, or at 
least adjusted, dies had early become cus- 
tomary in the Orient. We may first no- 
tice the beginnings of the practice among 
some of the early electrum coins of Lydia 
and Ionia. The gold and silver issues of 
Croesus show an unmistakeable adoption 
of the adjusted die— that is to say, pre- 


NUMISMAT CSN 








DEMANHUR 89 



















vious to striking, the obverse die and the 
reverse punch were carefully adjusted, if 
not permanently fixed, along a common 
axis. The real reason is not far to seek. 
The obverse design as adopted by Crcesus 
consists of the foreparts of a lion and a 
bull placed vis-a-vis. This forms a com- 
position whose general scheme is roughly 
CO. Likewise the two reverse punch marks 
form a similarly oblong design. As the 
coin blanks used at this time were invari- 
ably oval in shape, it was consequently 
absolutely necessary —if all the design 
were to appear upon the coin —for the 
two dies to be placed in a similar position, 









Fig. I 


their longest axes to correspond with the 
longest axis of the coin blank. For this 
reason we will always find the dies of the 
Croesic staters and sigli adjusted { — or 
f — as in Fig. 1. 









AND MONOGRAPHS 





90 


ALEXANDERVHOARDS 


After the fall of the Lydian Empire the 
Persian kings substituted their darics and 
sigli for the Lydian coins, and the royal 
archer of Persia replaces the Lydian lion 
and bull. But now that the composition 
of the new type is roughly (J, the reverse 
punch, being oblong in shape, must take 
an upright position because the oval coin 
blanks are still retained. Again the two 
dies necessarily assume positions to cor- 
respond with each other and the longer 
axis of the blank, as in Fig. 2. So long as 





Fig. 2 
the Persian Empire lasted, the obverse die 
and the reverse punch mark on the royal 
coinage held the constant relation ff, forc- 
ed into this rigid position by the peculiar 
form of the blank. It is most probable, 
therefore, that in imitation of the royal 
issues the practice of adjusting dies, par- 
ticularly in the most usual position f fT, 


NUMISMAT1 Ch a 











DEMANHUR 




























became so prevalent in the East at a com- 
paratively early period —long before the 
mints of the Greek world adopted it. 

As the coins described under Nos. 1748- 
1750 are so adjusted, it is reasonable to 
suppose that they originated in a mint 
under Persian influence. Their style, how- 
ever, and that of the accompanying staters 
and drachms proves that they must have 
been struck in Asia Minor, that is, north 
and west of the Taurus range. There is 
only one mint in this region that entirely 
conforms with the requirements demanded, 
and that one is Sardis. In the first place, 
there had for centuries been situated at 
Sardis a royal mint, first under the Lydian 
monarchs until the death of Croesus, then 
under the Achzmenid?! sovereigns. Un- 
der the latter, Sardis constituted the seat 
of government for the very important 
First Satrapy while its governor was prac- 
tically viceroy for the entire western por- 
tion of the Empire. It is highly probable 
that the darics and sigli coined here lasted 
until the coming of Alexander. The latter, 
on his arrival, took over the city and, fol- 





Swe e MONOGRAPHS 








ALEXAN DE RO hale 


lowing the Persian precedent according to 
his almost invariable custom, retained Sar- 
dis as the capital of the Lydian Satrapy. 
Now in all this satrapy only Sardis is at all 
likely to have coined under Alexander. It 
was the only large and important city of 
this district that did not possess complete 
autonomy. It had been a royal mint for 
centuries and had coined actively under 
the preceding régime. The remaining large 
commercial centres of the region, such as 
Ephesus, Clazomenz, Erythre, etc., were 
autonomous Greek cities and enjoyed and 
jealously guarded the coveted privilege of 
striking autonomous coins. Alexander 
looked upon these Hellenic centres of trade 
and commerce as allies, and, like the Per- 
sian kings before him, refrained from in- 
fringing upon their rights of local coinage. 
Sardis, however, was in a different cate- 
gory because as a city it had never en- 
joyed the rights of autonomous coinage, 
being the seat and royal capital of the 
satrapal government. Here Alexander un- 
doubtedly found an active mint of long 
standing, and furnished with all necessary 


NUMISMATIC UNG. 











DEMANHUR 93 








appliances and workmen. In Sardis we, 
for the first time, touch upon an outpost 
of oriental civilization and apparently find 
immediate evidence of thisin the adjust- 
ment of coin dies. 

As the coinages of Lampsacus and adja- 
cent mints were intended to supply the 
needs of Hellespontine Phrygia and of the 
garrisons which were stationed there, so 
the coinage of Sardis was to supply the 
royal needs in the important satrapy of 
Lydia, and especially to provide the pay 
of the troops stationed here to protect the 
famous ‘‘ Royal Road ” which ran via Sar- 
dis to the East. 











CARIA. 
Mint: MILETUS. 


Circa 330-318 B. C., Nos. 1751-1818. 


This group, if we are to judge by style 
alone, is certainly to be placed somewhere 
in Asia Minor north and west of the Tau- 
rus mountains. Our tetradrachms repre- 
sent only the commencement of a long 
series of issues. That they belong to- 


meee vON OGRA PHS 














94 








ALEXANDER a 


gether can best be appreciated by study- 


ing the large number of gold staters that 
accompany them. Confining ourselves, 
however, to the tetradrachms we not only 
find a general similarity of style and tech- 
nique between the various members of the 
group, but also several instances of a com- 
munity of obverse dies. As the final issues 
(not represented in the Demanhur find) 


in both gold and silver of this large series] . 


are bound by style or by obverse dies to 
Miller’s Nos. 1033, 1054, 1055, etc., the at- 
tribution of the entire group to Miletus 
seems assured. Furthermore, the almost 
constant symbol appearing on the staters 
Muller, Nos. 583, 584, 1131, 1134, 1135, 
1137) and many of the later silver issues 
(Midler, Nos. 1133, 1136, 1138-1140) is the 
double ax, a symbol closely associated with 
Caria. Although Miletus is generally 


\looked upon as a city of Ionia, both Ho- 


mer?? and Herodotus?3 agree that it origi- 
nally was inhabited by Carians. Certainly 
at a later date it formed part of the do- 
mains of the Carian Dynasts, and under 
Alexander continued to be reckoned as in 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 














DEMANHUR oD 





the satrapy of Caria.4 

At the time of Alexander’s invasion there 
was residing at the castle of Alinda, Ada 
the sister and wife of Idrieus the former 
satrap. She had been deposed by Pixo- 
darus when the latter had seized the power 
on the death of Idrieus. Ada at once 
opened negotiations with Alexander, even 
going so far as to adopt him formally as 
her son. She also offered to assist him in 
every way to secure the province of Caria, 
asserting that many of the nobles, as well 
as the Greek cities, would declare for him. 
Little wonder then that, after the capture 
and destruction of Halicarnassus, Alexan- 
der should have entrusted the satrapy to 
Ada. Its revenues were also assigned to 
her, and a force of 3,000 infantry and 200 
cavalry under a certain Ptolemaeus was 
left to protect the land. This important 
and wealthy district, as under the Persians, 
was allowed to coin money —but hence- 
forth only with Alexandrine types. As 
the capital, Halicarnassus, had been com- 
pletely razed*5. the mint was naturally 
transferred to the nearby city of Miletus, 


PDN ON OGRAPHS 

















96 


ALEXAN DE RWHO i 


the largest, and commercially the most 
important, place in all the region. 


LYCIA OR PAMPHYLIA. 
Mint: PHASELIS or SIDE. 
Nos.. 1819-1973. 


These coins are members of one group 
and therefore the issues of one mint, as is 
definitely shown by the fact that all the 
varieties here given are bound together by 
the use of certain identical obverse dies. 
It is somewhat difficult, however, to as- 
sign the group to any one mint or even 
province. The style as exhibited, partic- 
ularly by Nos. 1819 to 1943, is clearly that] 
of Greek artists in Asia Minor. The re-| 
verses of Nos. 1944 to 1972 are evidently 
somewhat influenced by the contemporary 
issues of Tarsus (Nos. 2327-2369). But 
this does not mean necessarily that their 
mint must be looked for in Cilicia. Alex- 
ander’s issues in Tarsus were discussed by 
the writer in a recent number of the A mer- 
ican Journal of Numismatics.2® There it 
was shown that because Soli, Mallus, and 


NUMISMATIC ON 








DEMANHUR 


Issus had to have their municipal coins 
struck for them in the central mint of 
Tarsus, it was not at all likely that they 
possessed mints of their own during the 
lifetime of Alexander, or even immediately 
after. The only other cities in Cilicia that 
had coined extensively in Persian times 
were Celenderis and Nagidus. If they 
coined under Alexander, their issues could 
scarcely have been of such importance as 
those represented by Nos. 1819 to 1973 man- 
ifestly are. Furthermore, their issues, like 
those of Cyprus or Phoenicia, would have 
been of a somewhat local character and so 
would have borne mintmarks of greater 
local significance.?7. Neither Celenderis or 
Nagidus can be looked upon as possible 
imperial mints. Nor was there any need 
in Cilicia for further issues of this charac- 
ter, as it is evident that Tarsus acted as 
the central mint for the entire province 
and as such issued imperial money in all 
necessary quantities. 

Nos. 1819-1973 are clearly royal issues 
as they bear no mintmarks of local signifi- 
cance, merely the private signatures of 


AND MONOGRAPHS 


97 


ALEXANDER HOARDS 











magistrates in charge of the coinage. It 
is probable that their mint was located in 
some seaport or important commercial 
centre. This follows from the fact that 
specimens of these varieties are present in 
nearly every recorded Alexander hoard 
buried previous to 300 B.C. They have 
occurred in at least six Egyptian hoards 
(including the present one), one Babylo- 
nian, one Syrian, one from Central Asia 
Minor, four Greek, and one Macedonian. 
Single specimens have reached the writer 
at various times from nearly every quarter 
of the Near East, from Athens, Constanti- 
nople, Smyrna, Syria, and Egypt. Coins 
of this type were apparently very widely 
scattered in ancient times. This would 
lead one to suppose that they had origi- 
nated in some active centre of commerce 
and trade, preferably a seaport. This is 
indeed negative reasoning and so is only 
of real value as a corroborative piece of 
evidence. On the whole, then, it might 
be said that the evidence points to some 
mint where “royal”, as in distinction to 
‘““municipal”’, Alexander coins would be 


NUMISMATICVNG ee 








7 


DEMANHUR 


struck, and this at some important seaport 
in Asia Minor, not too far distant from 
Tarsus. 

Approaching the problem from another 
angle, we have already noticed that the 
great Asiatic provinces of Hellespontine 
Phrygia, Lydia, and Caria, were severally 
supplied by an adequate coinage of the new 
types from their central mints. Cilicia, 
too, was amply provided for, as the writer 
has tried to bring out in his recent mono- 
graph on the subject. In this portion of 
the world there remain only the three 
great provinces of Greater Phrygia (as- 
signed to Antigonus), Lycia and Pisidia 
(together with Pamphylia constituted as 
one province and assigned to Nearchus), 
and finally Cappadocia (assigned to Sabac- 
tes as satrap). Cappadocia is at once 
ruled out as it was somewhat out of the 
direct line of trade, was not as important 
a portion of the empire as the other prov- 
inces, and did not become a particularly 
active coining centre until much later 
times. 

Celaenae, as the garrison centre of 








AND MONOGRAPHS 





ee) 


“ 











100 


ALEXANDER HOARD. 


Greater Phrygia and situated on the main 
road from Cilicia and the East to Sardis 
and the West, might well lay a considera- 
ble claim to the possession of an important 
mint. By means of the commerce which 
undoubtedly flowed along this route, the 
die cutters of Celaenae would very likely 
be well acquainted with the coin issues of 
Tarsus and might soon be led to borrow 
certain details from them. However, 
Celaenae, so far as we know, never pos- 
sessed a mint in Persian times. Alexander 
found it more expedient to issue his new 
coinage from old and well constituted 
mints, to which apparent rule there are 
only two exceptions, both of obvious ex- 
planation. The one is Ake, which was 
opened to take the place of Tyre de- 
stroyed; the other was the mint in his 
new foundation of Alexandria, a city he 
planned as a great capital and so, obvi- 
ously, in need of a suitable mint. 

There only remains the important prov- 
ince formed from the united districts of 
Lycia, Pamphylia, and Pisidia. Along the 
coast of this province were located the 





NUMISMATIC NOTES 








DEMANHUR 


busy seaports of Phaselis and Side, while 
further inland lay the powerful cities of 
Aspendus and Selge. All of these towns 
had struck coins in greater or lesser quan- 
tities before the coming of Alexander’s 
army. However, neither Selge nor Aspen- 
dus need be taken into consideration when 
searching for the possible mint of our tet- 
radrachms. Selge was not of sufficient 
importance at this time, while Aspendus 
was attacked, severely punished, and sup- 
pressed?® for its hostility to Alexander. 
Only Phaselis and Side therefore remain. 
Both these cities were very closely bound 
by coasting trade with Cilicia. They were 
active, wealthy, and well populated at the 
time of which we are speaking. The moun- 
tains behind them possessed rich silver 
mines, and Side’s mint, in particular, had 
long made full use of them. Nearchus ap- 
parently chose Phaselis as his seat of gov- 
ernment,?? and on this score that place 
could lay claim to an issue of coins such 
as ours. Side, on the other hand, was 
perhaps a more active centre of trade 
and commerce, and her issues of autono- 








ANDY MONOGRAPHS 








101 


ALEXANDERVAHOCAR TS 


mous coins had been the more continuous 
throughout Persian times and down until 
the coming of the Greeks. There is no 
doubt but that her business ties with Cil1- 
cia were strong, her coins had followed the 
same weight standard and were in appear- 
ance very similar to those of Cilicia. What 
is more, several were actually present in 
the Cilician find described by the writer a 
few years ago.3° Furthermore, her ties 
with Egypt must have been close as her 
coins are often found there.3t This would 
account for the surprising frequency with 
which coins of the type of Nos. 1819-1973 
occur in Egyptian finds. 

The style of our pieces and the presence 
of the title point to a period after about 
326 B. C. for their striking. This being 
the case, the tetradrachm in the Hunter- 
ian Collection at Glasgow, first published 
by Dr. Macdonald and illustrated on Plate 
XXII, No. 3 of his catalogue, was probably 
the earliest issue of the Alexander type at 
Side. So far as the writer is aware, this 
piece is still unique and was not repre- 
sented in the Demanhur deposit. 


NUMISMA TIC) > 





DEMANHUR 


CILICIA. 
Mint: TARSUS. 


333 to circa 320 B. C., Nos. 1974-2435. 


Tarsus, the capital and metropolis of 
Cilicia, had from very early times been the 
most prolific mint of this great province, 
so rich in natural resources and strategic- 
ally so important to the empire of which it 
formed a part. The Persian forces sta- 
tioned here had retreated before Alexan- 
der’s victorious advance and the city fell 
without a blow. The new ruler followed 
the obvious and most expedient course by 
imitating the Persians in making Tarsus 
his principal mint for this district. He 
employed the same workmen, and issued a 
large3? series of coins comprising gold stat- 
ers, silver tetradrachms, numerous subdi- 
visions in silver and copper, and, last but 
not least, two re-issues of the old Persian 
staters. 

It is, however, only the tetradrachms 
that interest us here as they alone occur- 
red in the Demanhur deposit. The first 
issue is made up of two separate but con- 


ANDY MONOGRAPHS 





103 








104 


ALEX ANDERE GOyAthe 


temporaneous groups of coins, the one dis- 
tinguished by an ‘A’ beneath the throne, 
the other by a‘B’. Special control marks 
are supplied by pellets, singly or in groups, 
placed beneath the throne or in the field 
behind the Zeus figure. A few of the ob- 
verse dies were used indiscriminately for 
both groups. There are also several in- 
stances where a reverse die of either series 
has been employed for the other, after the 
old letter had been erased and a new one 
substituted. 

The second series is more uniform, and 
is distinguished throughout by a PLow, 
perhaps symbolical of the far-famed fer- 
tility of the Tarsian plain. As special 
marks of control we find the pellets of the 
previous issue again used, and, in addition 
the letters, B, [, ©, and the symbols Ivy 
LEAF and BUNCH OF GRAPES. 

The distinguishing mark of the third 
issue is a wreath-bearing NIKE. She is ac- 
companied by varying letters and mono- 
grams, and, towards the end, by a CADU- 
cEus. In the course of this series the old 
‘“‘Cilician”’ style, made so familiar to us 


NUMISMATIC UNG 2 Es 





DEMANHUR 


by the large issues of Persic staters bear- 
ing the names of Pharnabazus, Datames, 
and Mazaeus, is definitely abandoned, and 
a new style, purely Greek in character, is 
introduced. 


CYPRUS. 
Mint: SALAMIS. 
Circa 332 to 320 B.C. Nos. 2436-2544. 


The reasons for assigning these particu- 
lar coins to Salamis in Cyprus have already 
been discussed in ‘“Some Cypriote Alex- 
anders”? Num. Chron., 4th Ser., vol. XV, 
1915. The Salaminian tetradrachm issues 
contained in our hoard comprise both types 
of Series I, but only the first type of Series 
II as there described. In discussing these 
coins on that occasion, the writer hesitated 
to see in the BOW a city mint mark, such 
as the other cities of Cyprus were using at 
this period. On reviewing this subject the 
possible suggestion has occurred to him 
that perhaps the Bow might rather be the 
personal symbol of Nicocreon, king of Sal- 
amis from 331-310 B.C. It is to be noted 
that Nicocreon was the first to introduce 


AND MONOGRAPHS 








105 





106 





ALEXANDERVROAR DS 


the type of Apollo on the Salaminian coin- 
age of local types and Rhodian weights.33 
These coins were issued more or less si- 
multaneously with those bearing the Alex- 
ander type. The fact of the introduction 
of an Apollo type by this king would lead 
to the supposition that Apollo probably 
represented his patron god. The use of 
the king’s personal symbol on an Alexan- 
der issue, rather than a monogram or sym- 
bol designating the city itself, is paralleled 
on the Alexander issues of Byblus in Phoe- 
nicia. This city, which by the way was 
situated on the mainland opposite Salamis 
and was bound to it by ties of commerce, 
marked its earliest Alexander issues with 
the initial letters of its ruler’s name. 


Our Salaminian coins are struck from 


dies adjusted [. 


Mint: CITIUM. 


Circa 332-320 B.C. Nos. 2545-2666. 


This series, too, was discussed by the 
writer in the above mentioned article in 
the Numismatic Chronicle for 1915. 


NUMISMATIC®ON@ 22 








DEMANHUR 





The comparatively large number of this 
particular group of Cypriote Alexanders in 
the Demanhur find, points not only to the 
large size of the issue itself, but also to the 
probability of close commercial relations 
existing at that time between Cyprus and 
Egypt. In fact, specimens from the Cyp- 
riote mints have occurred in every hoard 
known to the writer as having been found 
in Egypt. 


Mint: PAPHOS. 
Circa 330 to 320 B. Cc. Nos. 2667-2682. 


No. 2667 (Plate V, 4) has been assigned 
to Paphos because of the symbol which 
appears to be intended to represent a dove 
rather than an eagle, as Miller believes. 
The style of the coin itself is distinctly 
‘“‘ eastern ”’, its peculiarities, however, make 
its attribution to Cyprus more plausible 
than to any city in Cilicia, Syria, or Phoe- 
nicia. 

Two interesting discoveries have recent- 
ly34 occurred to prove definitely the cor- 
rectness of our assignment of Nos. 2668- 
2682 to Paphos. In the first place, bronze 


aoe NOGRA PHS 


107 





108 


ALEXAN DERVH G2 ky 


Alexander coins with the monogram # 
(= NM AOI, as shown by the writer in “‘ Some 
Cypriote Alexanders ’”’) have actually been 
found on the island of Cyprus. Secondly, 
the name of the famous king of Paphos, 
Nicocles, has been discovered by Mr. F. 
M. Endicott engraved in minute letters on 
the obverses of Nos. 2675, 2676. It is an 
interesting commentary on the ambitious 
character of this Cypriote king that he 
should have dared to inscribe, in however 
minute letters, his own name upon the 
coinage struck with Alexander’s types. It 
was not until after 305 B. C., that such 
powerful kings as Lysimachus, Demetrius, 
or Seleucus followed in his footsteps and 
placed their several names upon the Alex- 
ander coinage.35 


Mint: AMATHUS. 
Circa 328 or later. Nos. 2683-2714. 
The tetradrachm No. 2683 (Plate VI, 1) 
has been transferred from Paphos (where 
Mr. Hill assigned it in the British Museum 


Catalogue of the coins of Cyprus) and 
given, instead, to Amathus. In the first 


NUMISMATIC NO@ES 





a 


| 
7 


DEMANHUR 


| place, the flying eagle (not dove), exactly 
las we see it on this coin, constantly ap- 
pears on the autonomous coins of Amathus. 
On autonomous Paphian issues the dove 
is never depicted in the attitude of flight. 
In the second place, this coin is quite un- 
like the remaining Alexander issues of 
Paphos, while its reverse has many points 
in common with Nos. 2684-2714. This 
similarity is to be seen particularly in the 
details of the Zeus figure. 

Nos. 2684-2714, distinguished by the 
symbol prow, are typically eastern in style. 
The details of this style, however, point to 
Cyprus as the home of the mint which 
struck the coins. They will not satisfac- 
torily fit in with the issues of Cilicia, Syria, 
Phoenicia, or Egypt— but partake of a lit- 
tle of the style of each. Furthermore, we 
have at our disposal no seaport town in 
any of these particular provinces which is 
either without a coinage already assigned 
to it, or which could have struck so large 
a series as the present issue apparently is. 
The fact that specimens occur in at least 
three out of the six hoards found in Egypt, | 


AND MONOGRAPHS 










ALEXA NDE RBIROe hee 






of which we have records, speaks well for 
a Cypriote origin. For between that is- 
land and Egypt the ties of commerce and 
trade were closely knit. Particularly 
would this be the case with the two har- 
bors on the southern coast of Cyprus— 
Curium and Amathus—to which no Alex- 
ander coinage has as yet been assigned. 
We know also that during the Persian 
period the mint at Amathus was very 
active and struck a large series of silver 
coins.3° It is most reasonable to sup- 
pose therefore, that like its sister cities of 
Cyprus, Amathus should have continued 
to strike money under Alexander. There 
is no series of Alexander tetradrachms at 
our disposal whose origin is more likely to 
have been at Amathus than the group dis- 
tinguished by the PRow symbol. We have 
also a tetradrachm (No. 2683) which bears 
the flying eagle peculiar to these autono- 
mous issues of Amathus, and is therefore 
most likely to have been struck in that city. 
This piece forms the connecting link be- 
tween the autonomous coinage and Nos. 
2684-2714 with the PROW symbol. 











































NUMISMA TiG#\ >. 





| 


DEMANHUR 


Mint : MARIUM. 
No: 2715. 
The reasons for attributing this variety 
to Marium in Cyprus have been discussed 
in the writer’s ‘‘Some Cypriote Alexan- 


ders”? in the Num. Chron., 4th Series, vol. 
Vy ft 320, 321. 


Mint: SOLt. 
Nos. 2716-2718. 


These three tetradrachms are here only 
tentatively assigned to Cyprus. The style, 


which appears to be copied from some of 
the Egyptian issues, is not impossible for 
Cyprus. The symbol CADUCEUs is perhaps 
not unconnected with the little Cypriote 
bronze coin, of late style and bearing on 
its reverse a caduceus flanked by the Cyp- 
riote signs for Ba—E. The unique speci- 
men of this piece was first published by the 
writer in the Amer. Jour. of Num., vol. 
XLVIII, p. 69, No. 31. There the sugges- 
tion was made that this coin should be 
attributed to Eunostus, king of Soli, who 
reigned from 330 to 310 B.C. It is not 


Pee ONIO.G RA PHS 















ALEXANDER@HOAR 





unlikely that our Alexander tetradrachms 
were also struck by that king and signed 
with his symbol, the Caduceus. This would 
be paralleled by the use of the Bow on the 
Salaminian Alexanders of Nicocreon. 

















NORTHERN SYRIA. 


Mint: MYRIANDRUS. 


Circa 333 to 319 B.C. Nos. 2719-2896. 

This series, by its style, is more or less 
closely associated with the Cilician group 
(mint: Tarsus) described above. That it 
could not possibly have been struck by 
some city in Cilicia but must instead be 
assigned to Myriandrus (later Alexandria 
ad Issum) has recently been shown by the 
writer in Amer. Jour. of Num., vol. LIII, 
Part II, pp. 1-42. The reasons for this 
attribution are there given in detail. The 
various series into which the Alexander 
issues of Myriandrus fall, and the dates to 
be assigned to them, are likewise there 
described. 

Myriandrus, by reason of its command- 
ing situation, had grown to be commercially 















NUMISMATIC NOTES 








DEMANHUR 


|the most important city in all northern 
Syria. Possessed of a splendid harbor, 
the roomiest and best protected on the 
coast, the city became the terminus of the 
great trade route, via the Beilan Pass, into 
the plains of inner Syria. She completely 
dominated the shortest and most practical 
road linking the Mediterranean with Syria, 
Mesopotamia, Babylonia and the East. In 
fact, before Antioch and Seleucia on the 
Orontes had come to supercede her as the 
main outlet for the overland trade from 
Babylon and India, Myriandrus enjoyed 
an importance relatively far greater than 
Alexandretta, her representative in the 
Middle Ages and down to the opening of 
the Suez Canal. We may thus appreciate 
this north Syrian seaport at its true worth 
as the western terminus of the most fre- 
quented trade-route and military highway 
from Babyloniato the Mediterranean. Alex- 
ander’s farsighted statesmanship immedi- 
ately recognized the vital importance of 
the spot. This fact is indicated in no un- 
certain way by the foundation here of a 
city named after him, Alexandria kat’Isson 


Poe N OGRA PHS: 





ie 


114 


ALEXAN DERE OM. 


—one of the very first of the many strate- 
gic or commercial centres established by 
him, and also one of the two which today 
preserve his illustrious name intact. 

It is not surprising to find that the pre- 
ceding Persian mint located in this impor- 
tant city continued its activity under 
Alexander and issued a very large series 
of his coins. These are well represented 
in the Demanhur hoard. 


.. Mint : HIERAPOLIS-BAMBYCE (?). 
No. 2897. 


The proposed assignment of this coin 
(Plate VI, 2) is still open to doubt. Its 
style closely resembles that found on the 
issues of Tarsus, Myriandrus, and some of 
the Phoenician cities, yet is still too indi- 
vidual to allow its insertion among the 
coinages of any of these mints. The actual 
cutting of the dies is also somewhat cruder. 
Now we know37 that a considerable issue 
of Persic silver staters took place in the 
very important religious and commercial 
centre of Bambyce in the period that im- 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 


DEMANHUR 


mediately preceded and immediately suc- 
ceeded the arrival of Alexander the Great. 
These issues, too, are in imitation of the 
contemporaneous coinages of both Tarsus 
and Myriandrus, and their execution is 
crude to the same degree as that of our 
tetradrachm, No. 2897. Furthermore, on 
the last issue of these local staters, on a 
coin3’ actually bearing the name of Alex- 
ander in Aramaic characters, appears as 
magistrate’s sign the Greek letter M. 
This coin is perhaps the transitional piece 
between the local coinages of Persic 
silver staters and the introduction of the 
Alexander tetradrachm. At any rate, 
there is no other locality in all the eastern 
district to which this lone tetradrachm fits 
so well as to Hierapolis-Bambyce. Its 
possible attribution to that important 
city is therefore suggested here. 


COELE-SYRIA. 
Mint : DAMASCUS. 
Nos. 2898-3266. 


The abundant Alexander coinage of this 
famous Syrian metropolis is naturally well 





Peon ONOGRAPHS 


HIS 































ALEXANDER HOARD 


represented in the Demanhur hoard. Mis- 
tress of the great inner highway running 
north and south, inland emporium for the 
surrounding lands and the neighboring 
desert tribes, commercial intermediary be- 
tween these tribes and the trading centres 
of the Phoenician litoral, the coinage of 
Damascus was, in the very nature of things, 
one of the most important in these regions. 
At the time our hoard was buried the decay, 
which later set in with the founding and 
rapid growth of Alexandria in Egypt, had 
not yet made itself perceptibly felt. The 
commerce enjoyed by Damascus was evi- 
dently active and in consequence her coin- 
age was large. 

A detailed study of the issues represented 
by Nos. 2898 to 3266 show that these really 
fall into several consecutive series. The 
present hardly furnishes a suitable oppor- 
tunity for such a study, and therefore the 
separate issues have here been united un- 
der one large series covering about twelve 
years of time. The dies for this large coin- 
age were invariably adjusted f 7. 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 





£ 
~~ ee 


















DEMANHUR 


THE PHOENICIAN COAST. 
Mint: CARNE. 
Nos. 3267 and 3268. 


At the time of Alexander’s invasion of 
Phoenicia, the considerable seaport of 
Carne does not seem to have been a direct 
subject of the neighboring Aradus. At 
least we infer this from the fact that 
Arrian39 does not expressly name this city 
among the towns (Marathus, Sigon, Mari- 
amne) of the rpécoxo. of Aradus. This is 
strange as it was at least as important as 
Sigon and Mariamne, and we might well 
have expected Arrian therefore to have 
mentioned its surrender by the king’s son, 
Straton, to Alexander, along with the other 
cities of his realm. Also, we know Carne 
enjoyed a certain amount of freedom from 
Aradian supremacy at a later date. For 
like Marathus she issued a considerable 
series of coins in both silver and bronze. 
(Brit. Mus Cat., Phoenicia, xxxviii.) 

If then the ancient city of Carne claimed 
independence when Alexander arrived in 
Phoenicia, it is likely that she imitated her 














Pete evn On R) A PHS 





























ALEXANDER HOARDS 





larger neighbor and struck coins of the 
Alexander type. Because of her lesser im- 
portance the series is probably small. 

The group of tetradrachms represented 
by Nos. 3267 and 3268 would admirably 
suit a mint at Carne. The obverse of the 
first coin represents many stylistic affini- 
ties with Nos. 3269-3285, the first Alex- 
andrine issue at Aradus. Details of the 
reverse, however, such as the position of 
Zeus’ feet, coupled with the total absence 
of any footstool, resemble the issues of 
Salamis in Cyprus. Now the important 
seaport of Salamis lay directly opposite to 
Carne and was no doubt connected with it 
by ties of commerce. The next issue, No. 
3268, is an almost exact copy of the con- 
temporaneous coinage at Aradus (Nos. 
3334-3466) in the details of both obverse 
and reverse. These coins must surely have 
been struck at a town not far from Aradus, 
or at least directly under the influence of 
its coinage. 

Finally, the monogram with which 
our coins are provided most easily resolves 
itself into KAP. It is to be noted that 


| NUMISMATIC 2. 











DEMANHUR 119 


the alpha of the monogram does not pos- 
sess the straight bar necessary for this 
letter at so early a date. The cross-bar is 
distinctly curved, which would thus almost 
certainly presuppose the presence of the 
letter rho in the monogram. 

Like the other cities of Phoenicia and Cy- 
prus at this time, then, it seems probable 
that Carne commenced an issue of Alex- 
ander tetradrachms. Like them it was 
also allowed to mark its issues with a 
monogram of local significance. 


Mint: ARADUS. 
Nos. 3269-3585. 

Among the earliest Alexander issues of 
Aradus must be placed a very rare coin, 
published#e by M. Babelon, which appar- 
ently was not present in the Demanhur 
find. This is a tetradrachm bearing in the 
field of the reverse the Phoenician letters 
xp. This same inscription occurs on all 
the fourth century autonomous issues of 
Aradus. Similar to this tetradrachm in 
style are our Nos. 3269-3285, but on these 
the Phoenician letters of the mint’s name 


AND MONOGRAPHS | | 


ALEXANDER Ogre 





are replaced by the Greek letter ‘A’ be- 
neath the throne. TheT in the field is a 
magistrate’s letter. On the succeeding 
issues we find the magistrates signing their 
initials on the obverse (just behind the 
neck of the Heracles head), while the ‘ A’ 
has been elaborated into the monogram 
3, more distinctive of the Aradian mint. 
In passing, attention should be called to 
an interesting gold stater, first published 
by Geseniust! and later by Wiczay4? and 
Sestini,43 examples of which are to be seen 
in the Paris, London, and Berlin collec- 
tions. This stater embodies the peculiari- 
ties of two of the above tetradrachm 
issues. Behind the head of Athene we 
find the letter ‘A’ as on Nos. 3286-3288. 
On the reverse we not only find the mon- 
ogram A of those tetradrachms, but also 
the accustomed legend xp of the Aradian 
autonomous issues. Would that their 
mints had been so clearly indicated on all 
of Alexander’s coinages ! 

With No. 3302 the style of the Aradian 
issues changes perceptibly, the title BAS|- 
AEQs is added, but the mint mark 4 





NUMISMATIC NOTES 








DEMANHUR ZI 





















remains. The sequence of these particular 
issues was discussed more or less minutely 
in the Amer. Jour. of Num., vol. XLVI, 
1912, pp. 42-44. We will therefore re- 
frain from again going over the ground, 
and need only pause to reiterate, more 
strongly than ever, that the letters A, A, 
|, L, A, and = found singly in the reverse 
fields, should not be considered as alpha- 
betical dates.44 They are probably initials 
used by the various magistrates. The 
magistrate using the symbol CADUCEUS 
was the latest of the group, being in office 
just before the name of Philip III was 
substituted for that of Alexander on the 
Aradian coinage. Apparently no speci- 
mens of these later issues, struck in the 
name of Philip, were present in the De- 
manhur hoard. 

None of the Aradian coins we have here 
described seem to have been struck from 
fixed or adjusted dies, a process so freely 
used at this time in the other Phoenician 
mints. 


foe ON O.GR APHS 




















122 





ALEXANDER HOARDS 


Mint: BYBLUS. 
Nos. 3586-3652. 


Alexander issues corresponding to Nos. 
3586-3652 have always, until now, been 
assigned to Aradus. In his previous arti- 
cle on the Demanhur hoard, the writer fol- 
lowed his predecessors, but stated45 that 
it was difficult to reconcile the style and 
appearance of these pieces with the issues 
(Nos. 3286-3585) which certainly belonged 
to Aradus. It was therefore necessary to 
make the very improbable suggestion that 
these two series might both have been 
struck in Aradus, but that perhaps the 
one was a local city issue, the other a mil- 
itary or regal issue. Very fortunately the 
Demanhur hoard is now known to have 
contained a tetradrachm, hitherto unpub- 
lished, which presents a solution to the 
problem. This is the remarkable piece, 
No. 3586, pictured on Plate VI, 3. The 
coin is of early date, and of Phoenician ori- 


gin as shown by the two Phoenician) 
characters °"? beneath the throne. Its 


style and fabric is so close to the earliest 


NUMISMATIC NOG@EsS 





DEMANHUR 


issues of Nos. 3587-3623 that it must be 
considered as the immediate precursor of 
|those pieces and struck in the same mint. 
This means, however, that the entire 
group could not possibly have been struck 
in Aradus. This conclusion is further 
substantiated by the fact that our coins 
are invariably struck from adjusted dies, 
and we have already seen that this is not 
the case with the issues certainly emanat- 
ing from the mint of Aradus. 

Nos. 3587-3623 are of modified ‘Cili- 
cian’ style, very similar, as a compari- 
son will quickly show, to the earliest issues 
of Sidon and Ake. Now there is only 
one remaining mint in all this district 
which could possibly have struck such an 
important series as the one represented by 
Nos. 3586-3652. This is the ancient 
and flourishing city of Byblus. It would 
have been surprising indeed if this city 
had not struck money in Alexander’s 
name. History teaches us that Alexander 
|made it his constant policy in the East to 
confirm in their rule such local princes as 
submitted to him without a struggle. Also 


AN DeyMONOGRAPHS 


123 












ALEXANDER HOA KR Pee 


a study of his coins presents us with the 
undeniable. fact that wherever such local 
dynasts had, under Persian rule, enjoyed 
the rights of coinage, these were reaffirmed 
to them by their new over-lord. Thus we 
possess Alexander issues of Tarsus, Aradus, 
Sidon, Salamis, Citium, Paphos, Marium, 
and Amathus. Tyre and Gaza form 
illuminating exceptions. Although they 
had enjoyed the rights of coinage under 
the Persians, they were deprived of this 
coveted privilege by Alexander because 
they had refused him submission. 

If by a process of elimination we see 
that only Byblus could have issued Nos. 
3586-3652, we find a striking confirmation 
of this attribution in the presence on these 
coins of *y and A. The king ruling in 
Byblus at the time of Alexander’s invasion 
of Phoenicia bore the name of Ainel, or, 
in Greek, Enylos as given by Arrian.* 
Of this ruler we possess tetrobols bearing 
local types. The weights of some of 
these pieces belong to the Attic system. 
As this is the very first occurrence of that 
system in the Byblite coinage, it is proba- 





NUMISMATIC NOTES 













4 
7 
: 
: 
4 


DEMANHUR 


ble that these particular coins were struck 
after the submission of the city to Alex- 
ander. The name of the king on these 
coins reads 5xyy (Ainel). Now the 
first two letters of this inscription are 
exactly the two that appear beneath the 
throne on No. 3586 (Plate VI, 3). In 
other words, they prove that this tetra- 
drachm was struck by Enylos. Again, 
following the local issues of Enylos, there 
exists “ another group of small denomina- 
tions of local types and Attic weight bear- 
ing the name of the next ruler S DARTS 
or Adramelek. Is it not at once apparent 
that, , the monogram on the subsequent 
tetradrachms (Nos. 3587-3652, Plate VI, 
4) is but the ligature of the letters AAPA, 
the first portion of Adramelek’s name 
in Greek? 

The Alexander issues now Bene to 
Byblus are all struck from adjusted dies. 
In this they but follow the process used 
for the previous autonomous coinage of 
this city. 


AND MONOGRAPHS 








126 


ALEXANDER HOARDS 


THE PHOENICIAN COAST. 
Mint: BERYTUS. 
No. 3653. 


The assignment to Berytus of No. 3653 
is fairly certain. The six known varieties 
of this group all bear the letter B in the 
field and are closely allied by style with 
the coinages of both Byblus and Sidon. 
In fact, the indications as furnished by 
style are so strong, that hardly any other 
attribution is possible. 

As there are no really early issues 
known, it appears probable that a mint 
was not opened at Berytus until after the 
death of Alexander. At this time the cha- 
otic conditions prevalent almost every- 
where in the Empire favored the assump- 
tion by various cities of the right to strike 
money. ‘That Berytus had not yet grown 
equal in importance to her rivals on the 
north and south may be surmised from 
the comparative scarcity of her coinage. 


NUMISMADLC NiGaiees 





DEMANHUR . 127 


THE PHOENICIAN COAST(?). 
Mint: UNCERTAIN. 


Nos. 3654, 3655. 


A plausible attribution of these coins 
is still impossible, though the style and 
details of both obverse and reverse dies 
show certain affinities with the issues of 
Sidon. | 


THE PHOENICIAN COAST. 
Mint: SIDON. 
Nos. 3656-3768. 


As the Alexander coinage of this mint 
has been studied in a special monograph, * 
references to that work have been given 
rather than to Miller who was aware of 
but a portion of the known varieties. It 
will prove unnecessary to go into details 
here, as these the reader may find des- 
cribed and discussed in the above-men- 
tioned work. 

The Sidonian Alexander coinage was 
inaugurated almost immediately upon 


Me eM ONOGRAP.AS ae 








128 ALEXANDER HOARDS 


Alexander’s arrival in that city. During 

the following two years the Phoenician 

letter ¥, the initial of the city’s name W¥, 

is found in the field of the tetradrachms, 

while beneath the throne are the alpha- 

betical dates 8 or 1. The series that fol- 

lows omits dates entirely, substitutes the 

Greek letters = or S| of the city’s name, 

and on two varieties places a symbol in 

| the field. In 327 B.C. the custom of dat- 

ing the issues is re-introduced and the 

Phoenician date letters 1, M, 0, ’ appear in 

the field. In the course of the year 323 

B. C. Greek alphabetical dates are substi- 

tuted for the Phoenician. In 320 B.C. the 

name of Philip replaces that of Alexander. 

The last date known to have occurred 

in the Demanhur hoard is 0, which corre- 

sponds to the year falling between the 

first of October 319 B.C. and the thirtieth 

of September 318 B.C. It is interesting 

and important to note that every known 

variety of the Sidonian Alexander tet- 

radrachm, from the first opening of the 

mint down to the year O (319-318 B. C.) 
is represented in our hoard. 













NUMISMATIC NOTES 








DEMANHUR 


This would seem to be an opportune 
time to suggest a possible explanation for 
the curious absence of any apparent coin- 
age during the year A (323-322 B. C.). 
Our lack of coins, either in gold or silver, 
for this year can hardly be due to chance. 
It would be strange indeed if the Deman- 
hur hoard, so well provided with all the 
remaining Sidonian issues, should lack 
any examples of this particular date. The 
same is true of other large Alexander 
hoards known to the writer who, further- 
more, for the last fifteen years has carried 
on an active search for the missing date 
— but without success. 

As long ago as 1909 Mr. Hill drew atten- 
tion ® to the absence of any coins dated 
A and suggested that Miller (or rather 
Mionnet, his source) might have misread 
A as A on his coin No. 1420. The coin 
has unfortunately since disappeared and 
we have no means of checking the read- 
ing. The coin, however, was placed by 
Miller among those of later style, Nos. 
1415 to 1422, and these the present 
writer has elsewhere ® shown must cer- 


AND MONOGRAPHS 





ALEXANDER HOARDS 


tainly be attributed to Sinope. 

Either, then, we must suppose no 
coins whatever to have been struck in 
this year * or we must look for some other 
plausible explanation of the lacuna. Now 
there apparently lurks a clue in the fol- 
lowing interesting observation. Taking 
the dated gold coinage of Sidon and not- 
ing the dies actually fused for each year, 
we get the following table: 


Year Obverse dies Reverse dies 


QO, Rives Ua 


w, X 
Y, Z, AA, BB 
BB, CC 
co 
COOCRE 


’ 
im} 
a) 
K 
M 
N 
TT 
2 
~ 
® 
uf 
A 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 





DEMANHUR 


It will at once be seen that year Io (° and 
K)5? is conspicuous for possessing more 
obverse and reverse dies than any other 
one year. With its six obverses and six 
reverses it is far above the average of 
some two or three dies (obverse or reverse) 
engraved and used yearly. The case of 
the silver issues for the tenth year is not 
quite so marked as that of the gold. For 
while, even here, we find that the ° and 
kK issues have two obverse dies and five 
reverse dies, this is a high but not an ex- 
ceptional figure for the Sidonian coinage. 
The case of the gold, however, remains 
very striking. 

Now the only alternative to the some- 
what unlikely supposition that there 
really was no coinage in the year A is to 
suppose that ’ and K actually represent 
different years. But it is certain that ° is 
ten. Then K must be the following 
year— and at once a simple explanation 
arises to the mind to account for the seem- 
ing anomaly. It must be remembered 
that the die engravers at Sidon were as- 
suredly not Greeks but native Phoenicians. 





AND MONOGRAPHS 


Foz 





ALEXANDER HOARD: 


They had used the Phoenician alphabet 
to designate the dates 1(&), 2(3), 7(t), 
8(M), 9(0), ro(’). The next date would 
have been represented in their alphabet 
by 3, the eleventh letter. But if now, at 
the commencement of the new year, the 
order came in to replace the Phoenician 
alphabetical dates with Greek letters, 
what would have been the most natural 
thing for a Phoenician die cutter, thinking 
of the Greek alphabet in terms of his own, 
to have done? Obviously, instead of 
engraving the next succeeding or eleventh 
Phoenician letter, namely, 3 Kaph, it is 
very likely that unthinkingly he might have 
used tts acti.a! Greek equivalent, namely K. 
Now K is the eleventh letter in the Greek 
numerical (decadic) system, though here 
it stands for 20. In the alphabetical sys- 
tem, however, it is only ten, as digamma 
was omitted. Thus there were two 
stumbling blocks for the unwary Phoeni- 
cian to trip over in making a hasty shift 
from his own alphabetical dates to the 
Greek. Probably it was brought to the 
attention of the local authorities even- 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 





DEMANHUR 


‘tually that K did not represent eleven 
in the Greek alphabetical numeration, as 
its equivalent Kaph does in the Phoeni- 
cian. Perhaps, however, the mistake was 
not noticed until many coins bearing the 
offending K had already been issued, and 
so it was not deemed advisable, because 
of the resultant confusion, to strike new 
coins that year bearing the more correct 
A. So K was allowed to continue doing 
duty for A. But at the commencement 
of the new year, the twelfth after the com- 
ing of Alexander to Phoenicia, the correct 
alphabetical designation of this year, 
namely M, was placed upon the coinage. 

This would seem to offer a simple as 
well as a plausible explanation for the 
otherwise surprising fact of the apparent 
lack of any coinage in the year A. By 
assigning the K coins to the eleventh in- 
stead of to the tenth year, we also do away 
with the surprisingly large number of 
dies which we otherwise would have to 
give to the latter year. 


ANDY MONOGRAPHS 


bo3 


134 ALEXANDER HOARDS 


THE PHOENICIAN COAST. 
Mint: AKE. 
Nos. 3769-3975. ° 


For the references given in the cata- 
logue and for a detailed study of the 
coins themselves the reader is again 
referred to the writer’s previous mono- 
graph on the subject.® 

As far as is now known there was no 
autonomous mint in operation at Ake 
under the Persians. When Alexander 
first established a mint here, to take the 
place of the one in the destroyed city of 
Tyre, he found no ready-made means to 
this end at his disposal. Therefore, there 
was transferred from Sidon to Ake a die 
cutter, as well as an actual obverse die 
which had already seen service in the 
former mint.* 

The first few issues at Ake bear only 
magistrate symbols or letters. Then 
there was adopted the initial letter » of the 
city’s name 139; to be followed not long 
afterwards by the more complete form 4). 
Sometime in the year corresponding to)’ 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 





DEMANHUR 


327-326 B. C., a system of dating accord- 
ing to the regnal years of the local dynast 
was introduced. This occurred in the 
twentieth year of that ruler. The latest 
date included in the Demanhur hoard is 
his 29th year, corresponding to 319-318 
B. C. (Plate VII, 2). Being dated, the 
two coinages of Sidon and Ake furnish us 
with the surest criterion for determining 
the true date at which our hoard was 
buried. Unfortunately, when first treat- 
ing of the find,® the material at the writer’s 
disposal was insufficient to appreciate 
these Ake dates in their true significance. 
Instead, the most reasonable one of the 
many views held by previous writers on 
the subject was adopted. The Ake dates 
were referred to the era of Alexander the 
Great in Phoenicia, which took its incep- 
tion with the Autumn of 333 B.C. This, 
however, caused the last Ake date, known 
to have occurred in the find, to be very 
much at variance with the evidence offered 
by the Sidonian dates from the same 
source. The facile explanation of this 
disturbing discrepancy lay in the fact that 


AND MONOGRAPHS 





136 


ALEXAN DE REDO her 





the writer was well aware that at that 
time he had seen but a portion of the 
original hoard, and therefore many im- 
portant varieties might have escaped him. 
The question was most interesting and 
important, and so special endeavors 
were made to secure all available material 
for the study of the dated issues of both 
Sidon and Ake. This resulted in the 
eventual publication by the Yale Press of 
a monograph entirely devoted to this one 
subject. Here it was possible to prove 
that the dates used on the Ake Alexanders 
cannot refer to any era of Alexander the 
Great, Seleucus I, or such other eras as 
had been suggested by previous students. 
The dates can only refer to the regnal years of 
some local dynast. ‘They were first used in 
the twentieth year of his reign, which cor- 
responds with 327-326 B.C. This changes 
the aspect of things entirely, brings the 
Ake dates into complete concordance 
with those of Sidon in the Demanhur 
hoard, and considerably alters the date 
previously suggested for the burial of 
that hoard. 





NUMISMATIC NOTES 





DEMANHUR 


In his review * of the author’s work 
on Ake, Mr. Hill makes the suggestion 
that the dates found on the Alexandrine 
coinage of that city may be based on an 
era inaugurated at the end of the great 
Phoenician rebellion of 348 B. C. In 
other words, he hesitates to accept our 
dates as representing the regnal years of 
a local potentate. Mr. Hill’s suggestion 
is indeed plausible, and it is only after 
mature consideration that the writer 
still adheres to his former supposition. 
For between the end of the rebellion, 
with its supposititious granting of greater 
freedom to Ake, and the arrival of Alex- 
ander, some fifteen or sixteen years had 
elapsed. No coinage, autonomous or 
otherwise, had in the meanwhile appeared 
in Ake to establish the custom of dating 
by that era. The importance of this era 
to Ake must have been completely over- 
shadowed in 333 B.C. by the cataclysmic 
arrival of the Greeks and the fundamental 
changes brought about by that event in 
all Phoenicia. To the authorities in 
Ake, in the year 327 B. C., the compara- 


PLD MONOGRAPHS 





137 


ALEXANDER VROAR TS 


tively recent events of 333 B. C. must have 
appeared of far more importance and sig- 
nificance — at least so it seems reasonable 
to assume — than those of 348 B.C. We 
know things were vastly altered in 333- 
332 B.C., but we have absolutely no his- 
torical records to show that, as far as 
Ake was concerned, there had been the 
granting of any special privilege of such 
importance that a new era should there- 
fore be inaugurated. It seems much 
more probable to suppose merely that a 
new king had secured the power, or that 
a more loyal subject had been appointed 
by the Persian king as dynast in Ake. 
Now there would be nothing so very 
extraordinary in a local ruler in 327- 
326 B. C. adopting his regnal years as a 
means to date a purely local coinage of 
the Alexandrine type. At this very 
time a king of Byblus places his mono- 
gram on his coinage, a little later Pumia- 
thon of Citium places his name, regnal 
dates, and types upon his gold coinage, 
while Nicocles of Paphos engraves his 
name in full upon his Alexanders. For 


NUMISMATIC: NOTES 





DEMANHUR 


these reasons the writer feels justified in 
retaining his theory of regnal years to 
explain the dates found on the Alexander 
issues of Ake. 


UNCERTAIN MINTS IN THE EAST. 


Nos. 3976-3979 

The mints which once issued the above 
pieces may have lain, to judge by the style 
of the coins themselves, in Cilicia, Cyprus, 
Syria, or even Phoenicia. The symbol 
found on Nos. 3976-8 is very similar to 
the reverse type of the autonomous issues 
of Soli in Cilicia. On the other hand the 
Persic staters issued under Alexander from 
the central mint of Tarsus bear the initials 
=, M, |, T (= Soli, Mallus, Issus, Tarsus). 
This would seem to prove that Soli, as 
well as Mallus and Issus, possessed no 
separate mints of their own at this time. 
We should note, however, that the bunch 
of grapes with tendril and leaf as held in 
the hand of Dionysus is a conspicuous 
feature on the latest autonomous staters 
of Nagidus. As we know of no other 
Alexander coinage for the important dis- 


AND MONOGRAPHS 


bS¢ 





140 ALEXANDER HOARDS 





trict of western Cilicia, and as the style 
of our coins would easily admit of such an 
attribution, it is quite probable that they 
were struck in Nagidus. 

Concerning No. 3979 nothing definite 
can be said until future finds come to our 
aid with new specimens or varieties. This 
piece does not appear to fit in with any of 
the issues of such mints as we have al- 
ready studied. Its style, however, is not 
unlike some of the later issues of Cyprus. 


BABYLONIA. 
Mint: BABYLON. 
Nos. 3980-4609. 

Babylon— the greatest city of Asia 
and the capital of empires from the days 
of Hammurabi, the law giver — had 
probably possessed a mint under the Per-} 
sian kings. Continued by Alexander it 
became, next to the Macedonian mint 
of Amphipolis, the most important in 
all his Empire. Here, until the removal 
of the mint to Seleucia on the Tigris, were 
struck an extraordinary quantity of 
coins. Our ancient authorities make the 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 





DEMANHUR 


assertion that Alexander intended to con- 
|tinue this great metropolis as the capital 
and centre of his own empire, and it is 
reasonable to suppose therefore that a 
mint commensurate with this importance 
would soon be established here. 

* Babylon at this time was the central 
|mart of the East. Hither ran the great 
overland trade route from India and 
Bactria via Ecbatana. Here were also the 
wharfs for the ships which in their holds 
carried the goods of farthest Asia via 
\the Coromandel Coast, through the 
Persian Gulf and so up to Babil or Bab-ilt, 
meaning “the Gate of the Gods,” in fact 
the “Sublime Porte” of the ancients. 
Hence the imported goods, as also those 
for which Babylon itself was famous, such 
as embroideries, rugs, and fabrics of 
various kinds, were taken up the Tigris or 
Euphrates and thence to shores of the 
Mediterranean or into Asia Minor. When 
the armies of Alexander and the genius 
of their commander had made one empire 
from the Adriatic to the Indus, the impor- 
tance of Babylon, temporarily, increased 





PN NOINO GRAPHS 





141 





>) SO 


142 






ALEXANDER HOARDS 



























many fold. For now the markets of the 
West were thrown wide open, the free- 
dom and safety of the trade routes by 
land and sea assured, the demand for 
eastern luxuries fostered and made possi- 
ble of acquirement among the Greeks 
by the sudden influx of immense quanti- 
ties of booty and treasure from the con- 
quered cities of Asia. For all this traffic 
Babylon remained the focus of the land 
and sea routes until about 300 B.C. By 
that time Alexandria in Egypt had grown 
into an important city, and, because of 
the skilful policy of Ptolemy and the con- 
stant internecine wars of the Diadochi, 
which made land travel especially unsafe 
and intermittent, had deflected a large 
part of this traffic by way of the Red| 
Sea to herself. But throughout the last 
quarter of the fourth century B. C., Baby- 
lon flourished exceedingly. During this 
time quantities of coin were apparently 
issued by her very active mint. 

The Demanhur hoard contained a large 
and representative series of the Babylo- 
nian tetradrachm issues covering the first 








NUMISMATIC NOTES 








a 


DEMANHUR 





twelve years of their production. Only 
a tabulated list of the varieties known to 
have been in the find is here given. The 
minute discussion of these varieties, their 
true sequence, their dates, together with 
the many other points of historic, numis- 
matic, and archaeological interest they 
present, must be left to a more propitious 
moment when it will be possible to pub- 
lish a monograph devoted to this coinage 
as a whole. Only in this way will it be 
possible to do justice to one of the great- 
est and most interesting series of all the 
Alexander coinage. 

The late M. Imhoof-Blumer was the 
first to recognize the true origin of this 
series and to attribute it to Babylon.s7 
But even he hardly appreciated the magni- 
tude and importance of the coinage. 

The dies for the coins of Series I (Nos. 
3980 to 4057) were adjusted 44, in accord- 
ance with the system employed under 
{Persian rule for the darics and sigli. 
With the employment of new die cutters, 
commencing with No. 4058, the dies are 
no longer adjusted. 


AND MONOGRAPHS 


143 



























ALEXANDER HOARDS 


EGYPT. 


Mint: ALEXANDRIA. 
Nos. 4610-4826. 


Svoronos has assigned ®® four early 
types of the Alexander tetradrachm to 
Alexandria in Egypt, and they were all 
represented in the Demanhur Find. One 
of these varieties, however, has had to 
be assigned by the present writer to Asia 
Minor (here Nos. 1751-1754) because of 
its style and other close affinities with 
the issues of that district. The remain- 
ing varieties were certainly struck in 
Egypt. To them must be added the types 
here enumerated under Nos. 4610-4747 
and 4820-4821, for these coins are identi- 
cal in style and fabric with the pieces 
correctly given to Alexandria by Svoronos. 
Furthermore, specimens have occurred in 
six other Egyptian hoards known to the 
writer,” while they are seldom met with 
outside of Egypt. The large number and 
extraordinary preservation of the speci- 
mens from Demanhur would seem finally 
to confirm their supposed Egyptian ori- 


NUMISMA TICINO TES 





DEMANHUR 


gin. It is interesting to note that the 
type with the rose as symbol possessed 
more specimens in the Demanhur find 
than any other one type (all together 134 
pieces, or 138 if we add the slight variant 
Nos. 4610-4614). Originally there may 
have been many more than this number, 
as was the case with another of the 
Egyptian types. In his letter M. Dattari 
stated to the writer that there were over 
a hundred specimens in the find of the 
‘Khnum’ (Nos. 4748-4780) type, although 
the writer actually saw only 33 specimens 
of this beautiful coin. 

An interesting point brought out by 
a study of the Demanhur hoard is the fact 
that no mint was apparently opened by 
Alexander in Egypt until at a compara- 
tively late date. This was suggested by 
M. Svoronos in his work on the Ptolemaic 
|coinage, but is now definitely confirmed 
by our hoard. From the evidence of 
the dated coins of Sidon and Ake, the 
hoard cannot have been buried before 318 
B. C. Now there are only five distinct 
varieties of the tetradrachm in our hoard 


AN DEMONOGRAPHS 





ALEXANDER HOARDS 


that can be assigned to Alexandria; and 
of these, two— those with the Ear of 
Barley (VII, 3) and the Pegasus symbols 
(VIII, 1) —represent very small issues. 
The style exhibited by these coins is so 
similar throughout that their issue could 
not have covered a very long period of 
time. If we assign the opening of the 
Alexandria mint, then, to in and around 
the year 326-325 B.C., we shall prob- 
ably not befar wrong. These Alexandrian 
issues were first used as a model for the 
Sidonian coinage in the year which ran 
from October 1, 325, to September 30, 
S24°hac. 

It is still somewhat uncertain whether 
our hoard contained any specimens of 
the next series of Egyptian Alexander 
tetradrachms, those, namely, with the 
portrait of Alexander himself, clothed in 
the elephant’s skin head-dress, on the 
obverse (Svoronos, Nos. 18-24, 93). These 
must have followed closely upon the series 
described above, as the Zeus figure of the 
reverse is identical in style and details 
with that found on our coins. One 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 





DEMANHUR 


variety, moreover (Svoronos, No. 93), 
has the same symbol and monogram as our 
Nos. 4822-4826. M. Dattari was of the 
opinion that the Demanhur Hoard con- 
tained ten of these pieces. Although 
M. Dattari is in all probability absolutely 
right, they have not been included in our 
study, as the writer has throughout been 
careful to limit himself only to the pieces 
he has actually seen and handled. 


PUNCHMARKS 


Little further can be added to the notes 
on punchmarks and ‘“‘graffiti,’ as dis- 
cussed by the writer in his previous study 
of the Demanhur hoard. Only four 
varieties of punchmarks have been. noted 
on coins from this hoard. The first con- 
sists of a pellet in the centre of a sunken 
circle, with six rays running out from the 
pellet to the circle’s edge, the whole re- 
sembling a wheel. This punchmark was 
found on only one coin in the hoard, Plate 
VIII, No. 2. The second type occurs 
somewhat more frequently. Usually in- 
distinct and poorly struck up, it seems 


AND MONOGRAPHS 


147 


ALEXAN DER Oe 


to represent a human eye. Three speci- 
mens (coins of Amphipolis, Salamis, and 
Byblus) are given on Plate VIII, 3-5. 
The third punchmark appears just once, 
on acoin of Tarsus, here Plate VIII, No. 6. 
It consists apparently of the three Phoe- 
nician letters, }, in an oblong depression. 
The fourth punchmark consists of a small 
circle containing a raised pellet. The pel- 
let is joined to the circle at top and bottom 
by narrow necks or bands. This type of 
punchmark occurred twice in our hoard, 
once on a coin of type 2334-2338 and once 


on a coin of type 3300-3301. 


GRAFFITI 


“Graffiti,” or letters scratched on the 
surface (usually on the reverse), are of 
very frequent occurrence on coins from 
the Demanhur find. The letters may be 
Greek or Phoenician, and, as a rule, come 
singly or in pairs. In some cases we seem 
to have Phoenician words of three or 
more letters. These are probably names. 
They furnish enough material for a special 
monograph on the subject. As such a 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 





DEMANHUR 


monograph has been promised by Prof. 
C. C. Torrey of Yale, the present writer, 
who makes no pretences to Semitic scholar- 
ship, will be forgiven if he leaves this in- 
teresting subject to a more able pen. 


SCIENTIFIC VALUE 


From more than one point of view the 
Demanhur hoard is of peculiar value and 
interest to us. By mere size alone it is 
most impressive. In point of fact it is 
the largest hoard of Alexander tetra- 
drachms ever known to have been found. 
It is also the second earliest hoard of this 
denomination, the earliest being the 
Kyparissia Find recently described.“ Of 
surpassing value to us, however, is the 
fact that because of its size and scope 
it contained practically every variety 
of the Alexander tetradrachm coined 
previous to 320 B.C. The issues of the 
succeeding two or three years are well, 
though not completely, represented. It 
thus furnishes us with a remarkable sur- 
vey of the coinage of this particular de- 
nomination as issued by Alexander the 


PND MONOGRAP HS 


149 


ALEXANDER HOARDS 


Great, and enables us to establish, once 
for all, what types were or were not struck 
during his lifetime. 

The distortion of view, which might 
be expected to have been shown by a 
hoard of widely struck coins buried in a 
province lying as much to one side as is 
the case with Egypt, is hardly noticeable. 
The issues of only one or two mints 
have suffered, the remainder are repre- 
sented in direct proportion to the size and 
importance of their tetradrachm issues. 
The two largest of Alexander’s mints, 
Amphipolis and Babylon, furnish us with 
1582 and 630 coins respectively, or to- 
gether nearly one half of the entire hoard 
as it has come down to us. The only dis- 
tortions noticeable are indeed slight. 
One or two varieties of the Pella mint 
seem to be missing, while the early tetra- 
drachms of northern and western Asia 
Minor are not very strongly represented. 
Judgments as to the true size of the various 
mintages are based by the writer on his 
carefully kept records of the number of 
obverse and reverse dies known for the 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 



























DEMANHUR 


various mints. To illustrate, a brief 
table is here appended showing the num- 
ber of dies used at some of the most im- 
portant mints for the period covered by 
the Demanhur hoard. These totals have 
been secured from a study of the thousands 
of Alexander tetradrachms preserved in 
the various public and private collec- 
tions of Europe and America. 


PERIOD 336-318 ac. 


Num ber of 
Obverse dies Reverse dies coins in 
known. known. Demanhur 
Hoard. 


Amphipolis 705 1281 1582 
Babylon 498 630 
Tarsus 306 © 462 
Myriandrus a2 178 
Sidon 60 © 113 
Ake ae 207 
Alexandria 150 217 


Mint. 


Apparently, then, our hoard is able to 
furnish us with easily accessible and fairly 
accurate criteria for gauging the com- 
parative sizes of the various issues of the 
tetradrachm under Alexander the Great. 





AND MONOGRAPHS 


151 





152 


ALEXANDER HOARDS 


DATE OF BURIAL. 


To determine the approximate burial 
date of the Demanhur Hoard is not diffi- 
cult— now that the dated coinages of 
Sidon and Ake are better understood. 
Of these Sidonian issues every year is 
represented from & through ', and the 
succeeding Greek dates from K to Q in- 
clusive. The tetradrachm bearing the 
last-named date must have been coined 
between October 1st of 319 and September 
30 of 318 B.C. Similarly, every Ake 
date is represented from the first use of 
dates on its coins in the 20th year of the 
local dynast’s reign down to and including 
his 29th year. The writer has elsewhere ® 
shown that these dates are to be reckoned 
from the year 348-347 B. C., which brings 
the year 29 to 319-318 B.C. Thus both 
series exactly agree in placing the probable 
burial of the Demanhur Hoard at a date 
not earlier than the commencement of 
318 B.C. On the other hand, the hoard 
could not have been buried much after 
the commencement of 317 at the latest. 
The dated coin series of both Sidon and 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 


DEMANHUR 155 


Ake were continued uninterruptedly for 
i|many years after this date. The fact 
that their issues are frequently met with 
\in Egyptian finds speaks volumes for a 
constant and close commercial relation- 
iship between Egypt and Phoenicia at 
this very time. Therefore the sudden 
stoppage in the Demanhur Hoard of the 
'Sidonian coinage at the year O, and of the 
| Ake coinage at the corresponding year 29 
'— while the preceding coinages without 
a single exception are well represented in 
the find — is highly significant. 

That the burial of our hoard took place 
in 318 B. C., or at most soon after the 
commencement of 317 B. C.,1is fully cor- 
roborated by other though somewhat less 
definite clues which the contents of our 
hoard offers. For instance, the coins 
issued in the name of Philip Arrhidaeus 
(323-317 B. C.) are well though not com- 
pletely represented. To be noted is the 
fact that it is always the latest of his 
issues, or his coinages in distant mints, 
that invariably are missing. Thus for 
Sidon we lack any specimens dated TT 





Mowe MON O'G-R-A PHS 





ALEXANDER HOARDS 


(Oct. 1, 318-Sept 30, 317, B/C)” We 
also miss the common varieties listed by 
Muller under Nos. 1, 20, 54-56, 84-85, 
92, 100, 108, III, 113-115, 117, 120, 125, 
129, etc. Clear-cut cases are those of the 
Persian mint (Ecbatana?) and Babylon. 
The former first commenced to coin 
towards the end of the reign of Philip 
Arrhidaeus, but none of its very common 
issues are to be found in the Demanhur 
find. The Philip issues of the Babylon 
mint, in the order of their appearance, are 
represented by Miuller’s Nos. 99, 104, 
103, 24, 26,29, and 117. Of these the first 
five are well represented in our hoard, 
though in ever diminishing numbers. 
No. 29 is represented by but one specimen 
in mint state, while the exceedingly com- 
mon variety No. I17 is conspicuous by 
its complete absence. The final Philip 
issues of other near-by mints, such as 
Aradus and Salamis, are also noticeably 
absent. Thus it can be seen that we 
would not be far wrong in adopting the 
year 318 B. C. as the probable burial date 
of the Demanhur Hoard. 





























NUMISMATIC NOTES 


DEMANHUR 155 


REASONS FOR THE BURIAL. 


The entire lack of any reliable informa- 
tion concerning the find spot of our hoard, 
or its mode of burial, leaves the field wide 
open for numberless conjectures respect- 
ing its former owner and his immediate 
reasons for burying so great a treasure. 
To allow our fancy to stray among so 
many fascinating possibilities would serve 
no useful end. Arguments could be ad- 
duced with equal plausibility to prove 
our hoard a government treasure, a mili- 
tary war chest, the accumulation of a 
wealthy merchant, or even robbers’ loot 
hidden away in a moment of danger. 

The facts are that the hoard was in- 
terred just at the moment when the land 
of Egypt, so far as we know, was enjoying 
profound peace. The great convention 
of the Satraps at Triparadeisus in 321 
B. C. had confirmed Ptolemy in his posses- 
sion of Egypt. The following year he 
had, in a somewhat high-handed fashion, 
seized upon Cyprus and Phoenicia. The 
other Satraps were at that time far too 
absorbed in their own troubles to do more 


AND MONOGRAPHS 





156 


ALEXANDER HOARDS 


than protest. The ensuing years were 
spent by Ptolemy in quietly organizing 
his kingdom and strengthening his power 
for the conflict he knew lay ahead. To be 
sure, in the year 318 B. C. — that is, the 
very year which apparently witnessed 
the interment of our hoard — a consider- 
able flurry was occasioned in the eastern 
Mediterranean by the sudden descent 
of Eumenes upon Phoenicia. Here he 
seized certain large maritime cities, and 
upon their docks and wharves commenced 
to construct a fleet with the intention of 
securing command of the sea. Although 
Ptolemy was thus temporarily forced out 
of Phoenicia, we have no reason to sup- 
pose that his possession of Palestine was]. 
threatened or that Eumenes contem- 
plated any immediate descent upon 
Egypt. Certain it is that Eumenes’ 
power in Phoenicia collapsed as quickly as 
it had arisen and that before the summer’s 
end he had retreated eastwards into 
Persia. | 

We may be hardly justified, therefore, 
in associating the Demanhur burial with 


NUMISMA2 1 CoN a 





DEMANHUR 


so distant and ephemeral a danger. The 
times, however, were obviously uncertain 
and dark clouds loomed on the political 
horizon. The original possessor of our 
hoard may have decided against taking 
any chance with so large a treasure, and 
hence proceeded to bury it before it 
might be too late. On the other hand, 
we have absolutely no historical or ar- 
chaeological data to suggest any local dis- 
turbance occurring at this time. The 
fact remains that the great Hoard of De- 
manhur still guards its secret as abso- 
lutely as did its ancient owner after he 
consigned his treasure to the ground two 
thousand two hundred and forty years 
ago. 


AND MONOGRAPHS 


































ALEXANDER HOARDS 


NOTES 


1 Reattribution of Certain Tetradrachms of 

Alexander the Great. 
' 2 Within the last three years M. Dattari has 
informed me of a find of 3000 Alexander tetra- 
drachms, and not long afterwards of a hoard of 
46,000 Roman coins. These seem to be but aver- 
age occurrences. 

3 Tarsos under Alexander, Amer. Jour. Num., 
vol. LII, and Myriandros—Alexandria kat’Isson, 
in vol. LIII of that publication. 

4 Numismatic Notes and Monographs, No. 3, 
The Kyparissia Hoard. 

5 Numismatique d’ Alexandre le Grand, p. 5, ff. 

61.c. Note 1. 

Clo GeDD. 24-272 

8 Ludwig Miiller, Numismatique d’ Alexandre le 
Grand, pp. 304 ff.; Dr. Jules Rouvier in the 
Revue Numismatique, 1909, pp. 321 ff.; G. F. 
Hill, Notes on the Alexandrine Coinage of Phoe- 
nicia, in Nomisma, IV, 1909, p. 12. 

9 The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and 
Ake, pp. 55 to 59. 

10 The correct interpretation of these dates is 
absolutely verified by three finds at our disposal. 
l.c., pp. 57 and 58. 

1l],¢, Note 4. 

12 Amongst others, Miiller Nos. 68, 69, 70, 115, 
116, I9I, 192, 193. Note also that we possess 
two tetradrachms of Philip II having the pecu- 
liarity of the Zeus head facing to the left. In 





NUMISMATIC NOTES 


DEMANHUR 


style they are identical with our tetradrachms 
Nos. 1599 to 1603, and bear the same symbols: 
BEE or 98. Compare Plate II, 1 and 2 with 
Imhoof-Blumer Monnaies Grecques, p. 117, No. 
17 and Catalogue of the Th. Thomas Sale, No. 
1017. 

18 and 4 Now in the writer’s coll. 

15 Now in the Athens coll. 

16 Miiller, Nos. 866-874. 

17 Babelon, Traité II2, Pl. CLXXVIII, also 
probably Pl. CLXXII, 7. 

18 Von Fritze in Nomisma, IX, pp. 49 ff. 

19 Babelon, Traité II?, pp. 56-60, 69-73. 

20 Miiller, Pl. XXVI, No. 308, and British 
Museum Cat., Caria, Introd., p. cviil. 

21 Brit. Mus. Cat., Arabia, etc., Introd., p. 
cxxxv, and Mr. Milne in Num. Chron., 1916, pp. 
neit. 

227, 146. 23 TI, ii, 867. 

24 Hausoullier, Etudes sur l'Histoire de Milet 
et du Didymeion, p. 8. 

25 Arrian, I, 23, 6. 

26 Tarsos under Alexander, Amer. Jour. Num., 
vol. LII. 

27 For a possible Alexander coinage at Nagi- 
dus, see the discussion of Nos. 3976-8. 

28 Arrian, I, 27, 3-4. 

29 Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenismus, II, 1, 
p.20: 

30 «« A Cilician Find,’’ Num. Chron., 1914. 

81 For instance, a hoard of the later tetra- 


Pea ev ON GRA PHS 


P59 





ALEXANDER HOU Or 


drachms was unearthed in Egypt in 1896 and 
has been described by Dutilh, in the Journal 
internationale d’archéologie et numismatique, I, 
1898, pp. 148-156. Single specimens have also 
reached the writer from Egypt. 

32 See ‘‘ Tarsos under Alexander,”’ l. c., passim. 

33 See Brit. Mus. Cat., Cyprus, No. 85, Pl. XII, 
19. 

34 See Num. Chron., 4th Ser., vol. XIX, pp. 
64, 65. 

35 But see E.S. G. Robinson’s ‘‘ Aspeisas, Sa- 
trap of Susiana’”’ in Num. Chron., 5th Ser., vol. 
I, pp. 37, 38. 

36 Brit. Mus. Cat., Cyprus, Nos. I-23. 

37 J. P. Six in Num. Chron. N.S., Vol. xviii, pp. 
103-131. 

38 Brit. Mus. Cat., Galatia, Cappadocia, and 
Syria, Plate XVII, No. 7. 

39 Arrian, Anab. ii, 13, 7ff. 

40 Rev. Num., 3d Ser., vol. IX, 1891, Pl. XII, 2. 

41 Script. linguaeque phoen. monum., p. 270, 
tab. xxxv,.1. 

42 Musei Hedervarii numos antiquos graecos 
et latinos descripsit. Vienna, 1814. 

43 Sestini, Descrizione d’alcune medaglie Greche 
del Museo Hedervariano. Florence, 1822-1829. 

44 As has been claimed by M. J. N. Svoronos, 
Ta Noulopara rot Kpdrovs r&v Irodeuatwv, and 
followed by Mr. Hill in his ‘‘ Notes on the Alex- 
andrine Coinage of Phoenicia,’’ Nomisma, IV, 


1909. 


NUMISMA TI CaN Ce 








DEMANHUR 


45 Reattribution of Certain Tetradrachms of 
Alexander the Great, Amer. Jour. of Num., vol. 
XLVI, 1912, pp. 42-44. 

46 Arrian, II, 20. i. 

47 Brit. Mus. Cat. Phoenicia, No. 10, Plate 
A113. 

48 EK. T. Newell, The Dated Alexander Coinage 
of Sidon and Ake. New Haven, The Yale Press, 
1916. 

49 Notes on the Alexandrine Coinage of Phoe- 
nicia, Nomisma, IV, 1909, p. 9, note I. 

50 The Alexander Issues of Sinope, Amer. Jour. 
of Num., vol. LII. 

51 As the writer himself believed, p. 32. The 
Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake. 

52 As both the Phoenician § and the Greek K, 
when used for alphabetical numerals, represent 
10, all the issues bearing these dates have been 
assigned to the single year from October 1, 324 
to September 30, 323 B. C. 

58 The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and 
Ake. New Haven, Yale Press, 1916. 

a Bin OPaL- te 

55 Amer. Jour. of Num., Vols. XLV, XLVI, 
IQII-12, passim. 

56 Num. Chron., 4th Ser., Vol. XVI, 1916, pp. 
407-9. 

57 Die Miinzstatte Babylon, Num. Zeitschr, vol. 
XXVII, 1895. He later successfully defended 
this assignment against Sir Henry Howarth’s 
rather old-fashioned objections (Num. Chron., 





Pe eMONOGRAPHS 


161 


ALEXANDER HOARDS 


4th Ser., vol. IV, with Imhoof-Blumer’s rejoin- 
der in vol. VI). 

58 Ta Noulouara rod Kpdrous rév Irodenalwv. 
Nos. 3, 6, 12,94. Inreality No. 94 he assigned 
to Corinth under Ptolemaic suzerainty and this 
coin will have to be returned to Egypt, as Corinth 
was not held by the Egyptians until long after 
the burial of the Demanhur hoard. 

59 Two hoards described by Dutilh, Annuaire 
de Numismatique, 1895, vol. XVII; the find 
made near Kuft (largely represented in the col- 
lection of the late Dr. Strachan Davidson and 
now preserved in the Ashmolean Museum, Ox- 
ford) ; and three smaller hoards from Egypt now 
in the writer’s possession. 

60 Aside from the comparatively small number 
of extant specimens only a few dies were appar- 
ently used in their production. The issues can- 
not, therefore, have been large. 

61 Numismatic Notes and Monographs, No. 3. 

62 In the cases of Tarsus, Myriandrus, Sidon, 
and Ake there are included in these totals 
such obverse and reverse dies as have been 
brought to the writer’s attention since the pub- 
lication of his various monographs on these par- 
ticular mints. 

68 The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and 
Ake. 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 














PLATE I 


DEMANHUR 


MaLtkTiG 








PLATE IT 


DEMANHUR 


ea a ee 





Ce. 


fe ene 





PLATE III 


DEMANHUR 











PLate IV 


DEMANHUR 


Ah, 


2: 


shite ce 





tide hia S 








DEMANHUR PLATE V 








PLATE VI 


DEMANHUR 





Bled ate 


DEMANHUR 


+ 
P4 
a» 
i. i 
2 
Zi 
a 
e 





PLATE 


VII 





PLATE VIII 


DEMANHUR 








peeevelos MATIC 
NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS 


r—~ 

| 73 lee | 
1 iry 

US Go eer ee 


—— 


Numismatic Notes AND MoNoGRAPHS 
is devoted to essays and treatises on sub- 
jects relating to coins, paper money, 
medals and decorations, and is uniform 
with Hispanic Notes and Monographs 
published by The Hispanic Society of 
America, and with Indian Notes and 
Monographs issued by the Museum of the 


American Indian—Heye Foundation. 


PUBLICATION COMMITTEE 


AGNES BALDWIN Brett, Chairman 
Henry RuSSELL DROWNE 
Joun ReEILty, Jr. 


EDITORIAL STAFF 


SypNnEY Puitie Noe, Editor 
HowLanp Woop, Associate Editor 
V. E. Earwe, Assistant 


Pee OA N DER 
Beak L) > 


Wie NORIPSARNA 


BY 


EDWARD T. NEWELL 





THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY 
BROADWAY AT I560TH STREET 
NEW YORK 
1923 


COPYRIGHT, I 








ae NN DER HOARDS 





THE ANDRITSAENA HOARD | 
By Epwarp T. NEWELL 


This small but interesting hoard is 
stated to have been found near Andrit- 
saena in the Peloponnesus and was of-| 
fered for sale by an Athenian antiquity 
dealer early in March of 1923. How 
long before this it had been found, we do 
not know. It was entirely due to the in- 
terest and active intervention of Mr, 
Sydney P. Noe, who chanced to be in| 
Athens at the time, that the Philip and| 
Alexander portion of the find was se-| 
cured intact, as well as casts of many of 
the remaining Bceeotian, A°ginetan, Sicy-| 
onian, and Olympian staters. 

No further particulars concerning the} 
hoard, or the circumstances surrounding 
its discovery, are at present available. 
As it had passed through at least two 
hands before reaching the Athenian 
dealer, it was found impossible to secure 


Poe MATIC NOTES 


iz ALEXANDER SOS 


any further information. All we can 
definitely state is that it was certainly 
found in the Peloponnesus and that all 
the specimens offered to and secured by 
the dealer have been seen. Whether the 
find was originally larger is not definitely 
known, but the person from whom the 
dealer acquired his portion is said to 
have made the vague statement that he 
believed there were a few more pieces. 
None, however, were seen in Athens be- 
fore the end of May, 1923. As the con- 
tents of the hoard make a well rounded 
out whole, it is quite possible that we 
possess it in its entirety. At any rate, it 
is well worth publishing. 

As a whole, the coins in this hoard are 
exceedingly well preserved. Not only 
was their original owner apparently very 
particular with regard to the condition 
of the pieces which he added to his sav- 
ings, but time also has dealt kindly with 
the little treasure entrusted to its not 
always tender care. When found, the 
majority of our coins were but slightly 
oxidized, some not at all. This oxidiza- 


NUM1S Mex ta Coe 


MeN DR eT SAE N A 


tion has proved easily removable, as has 
also the fawn-colored earth or clay which 
originally encrusted all of the coins. 
With three exceptions, reserved for pos- 
sible future reference, all of the Philips 
and Alexanders have now been cleaned. 
The weights of the Beotian, A ginetan, | 
Sicyonian, and Olympian staters were 
not ascertained, but those of the remain- 
der are given below. 


Peis 1) OF MACEDON, 350-336 B.c. 
Mint oF AMPHIPOLIS. 


I TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Laureate head of Zeus to r. 
Rev. ®IAINMMOY. Youthful rider | 
wearing fillet and holding palm branch, 
on horseback to r. Beneath foreleg, 
ROSE. 

Miller, No. 75. VG. gr. 14.47. 

2 TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Similar. 

Rev. Similar. Beneath horse, BEE and 
STERN. 

MiulereNo., 107,..F. gr. 14.32. 

3 TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Similar. 





Peso OYUN OGRA PHS 


ALEXANDER) HOA 


Rev. Similar. Beneath horse, BEE and 
DOUBLE HEAD. 

Miiller, No. 2701. F. gr. 14.435. Plate I. 
4 TETRADRACHM. 

Similar to the preceding. 

F. gr. 14.38. 

5 TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Similar. 

Rev. Similar. Beneath horse, DouBLE 
HEAD. 

Miller, No. 269. VF. gr. 14.535. 

6 TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Similar. 


Rev. Similar. Beneath foreleg, pou- 


BLE HEAD. 
Miller, No. 269. VG. gr. 14.375. 
7 ‘TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Similar. 


Rev. Similar. Beneath foreleg, sTERN. 
Miller, No. 210. VG. gr. 14.22. 


MINT OF PELLA. 


8 TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Similar. 

Rev. ®IAIIMIOY. The king in kausia 
and mantle, right hand raised, advanc- 
ing to 1. on horseback. Beneath horse, 


HM. 
Miller, No. 297. G. gr. 14.26. Plate I. 





NUMLS MATT Ge NeOe ees 


Pew DiRT Ts A.E’N.A 


g TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Similar. 

Rev. Youthful horseman to r. as on 
No. 1. Beneath horse, THUNDERBOLT. 
In exergue, N. 

Miller, No. 11. VG. gr. 14.33. Plate I. 


Posthumous issue of circa 325 B.C. 
10 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar, but of later style. 
Rev. Similar, but of later style. Be- 
neath horse, FLYING BEE. 


Variety of Miller, No. 191. VF. gr. 14.31. 
Plate I. 


ALEXANDER III OF MACEDON, 


336-323 B.C. 
Mint or AMPHIPOLIS. 


Group A, circa 336-334 B.C. 

11-12 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Head of young Heracles to r. 
Rev. AAEZANAPOY. Zeus ztophor 
seated to 1. on throne. In front, PRow. 
Maller, No. 503: G. gr. 17.07. F. 17.09. 

Group B, circa 333 and 332 B.c. 

13 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, BUNCH OF 
GRAPES. 
Miller, No. 306. F. gr. 17.15. 


Seer ONO GRA PHS 





ALEXANDER HOW 


Group D, circa 330 and 329 B.C. 
14 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, cLus and (5) 
Variety of Miller, No. 138. F. gr. 17.095. 
15 LTETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, HORSE’S HEAD. 
Miller, No. 528. VF. gr. 17.145. 
16 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, DOLPHIN. 
Miller, No. 5390. G. gr. 27.20. 
Group E, circa 328 and 327 B.C. 
17 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, HERM. 
Muller, No. 366. VE> er. race: 
18 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, cock. 
Muller, No. 392. VF. 16.945. 
Group F, circa 326 B.c. 
19 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, Bow and QUIVER. 
Miller, No. 591. VF. gr. 17.15. 
Group G, circa 325 B.C. 
20 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 


NUM 1S MAQIsiG ele 





en Don TS ATE N A 


Rev. Similar, but inscription: AAEE- 
ANA—P—OYBASIAEQOS. In field, 
CORNUCOPIA. 
Miller, No. 368. VF. gr. 17.22. 
Group H, circa 324 and 323 B.c. 
21-22 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar, but inscription: BAXI- 
AEQS AAEZANAPOY. In field, PHRYG- 
IAN CAP. 
Mautler, No. 854. VE. gr. 17.21, 17-16. 
23 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, TRIPOD. 
Muller, No. 146. VF. gr. 17.20. 
Group l- circa 322 and 321 PB.c. 
24 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, 
Miller, No. 860. VF. gr. 17.125. Plate II. 
25-28 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, |2 
Bigtler = No. S63. F. D.C. gr. 17.18, 17.20, 
ee 17.27. 
Group J, circa 320 and 319 B.C. 
29 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, EAR OF BARLEY. 


were ONOGRAPHS 





ALEXAN DEIR 3H OA 


Beneath throne, II. 
Miller, No. 570; Fi DeCigproigas, 
30 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, LAUREL SPRIG. 


Beneath throne, IT. 
Miller, No. 560. F. D.-C. gr. a7.10: 


31 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, cRESCENT (up- 
right). Beneath throne, II. 
Miller, No. 262, °F.) Dy ior eemee 


32 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 


Rev. Similar. In field, CRESCENT (in- 
verted). Beneath throne, II. 


Variety of Miller, No. 261. F. D. C. gr. 
17.32. Plate II. 


MInT oF PELLA. 
Circa 336-320 B.C. 
33-35 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Similar, but of different style. 
Rev. Similar, but of different style. 
Beneath throne, 0. 
Miller, No. 197. VG. to F. gr. 17.12, 17.8o, 
E756. 
36 ‘TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 


NUMISMATIC NO 





Pere R Lies AE NA 


Rev. Similar. In field, AY 
Moalier, No. 762. F. D. C. gr. 17.32. 
Plate IT. 
37 LETRADRACHM. 


Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. No symbol. 
Variety not in Miller. VF. gr. 17.195. 
38 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. Beneath throne, BU- 
CRANIUM. 

Muller, No. 98. VF. gr. 17.17. 
UNCERTAIN MINT IN MACEDONIA 
or THESSALY. 

39-40 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Similar to the preceding. 
Rev. Similar. In field, HELMET. Be- 
neath throne, AS. 
WMatler, No. 1472. F. D.C. gr. 17.14, 17.195. 
MINT OF PHASELIS OR SIDE. 
41-53 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Head of fine style to r. 
Rev. AAFZANAPOY onr., BASIAEQOS 
in exergue. Zeus on high-back throne 
to 1. In field, wreatH. Beneath 
throne, AT. 


Mailer, No, 550. F. to F: D. C. gr. 17.00; 
HO vemel Os sak 7 VOT. Et se 17. E25 17.04 5 
Peewee Ss. 7 .LO., £7.50; 17.22; 17.25. 

Plate II. 


eve wt ON OGR APH S 


IO 


A LEX A.N-D ERS SE Geass 


54 [TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. Beneath throne, AT. 
Muller, No. 216. VES grai7 ese 

55 LETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar, but with BASIAEQOS 
above. In field, AI. Beneath throne, 


| Bea 
Muller, No. 1483, “F. DoGP grep zaos 


MINT OF TARSUS. 
Series 1, circa 333-327 2.¢ 
56 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Head of young Heracles of east- 


ern style. 
Rev. Zeus, of eastern style, od 
enthroned to 1. Below throne, A. 
Newell, Tarsos under Alexander, No. 6. 
VG, gr. 17.14: 

57 LETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. Beneath throne, B. 
Newell, J. c:’ No, to.2 see 


MINT OF SALAMIS. 
Series I, 332-320 B.C. 
58 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, Bow. 





NUMIS MAQt1 CN Oia 


Peo kK ia SAE N A II 


Miller, No. 1287. (See also, Newell, Some 
Cypriote Alexanders, Num. Chron., 1915, 
Doge) ) VG. ef.-17.12. Plate III. 
MINT oF CITIUM. 
series I, 332-320 B.c. 
59 LETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, k 


Miller, No. 1294. (See also, Newell, /. c. 
Moma. 9b.) gr. 171045. Plate III. 


MinT oF MyRIANDRUS. 
Benes .i1, 217ca 320 B.C. 
60 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. BASTARQ> on r., 
AAEZANAPO in exergue. In field, 1 


Beneath throne, 


Newell, Myriandros—Alexandria kat’ Isson, 
Wo.zo. -F. gr, 16.08. 


Series III, circa 328-326 B.c. 
61 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar, but without the title, and 
with AAEFZANAPOY on r. Same 
monograms. 
Newell, /. c. No. 22. F. gr. 17.035. 
Series IV, circa 326-323 B.C. 
62 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 


Peeriow ns OuN O GRA PH S 


12 ALEXANDER Ge 


Rev. Similar. In field, q over FO: 
Beneath throne, m 


Newell, J. c. No. 28. VG. (not cleaned), gr. 
17.24. 


MINT oF ARADUS. 


63 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In exergue, BASIAEQOS, 


onr., AAEZANAPOY. Beneath throne, 
A 


P 
Miller, No. 1360. VF. gr. 17.07. 


64-66 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, &. Beneath 
throne, 4 


Miller, No. 1364. F. and VF. gr. 17.03; 
17,1053 17.roRs Plate ITI. 


67 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, $0. Beneath 
throne, @& 
Miller, No. 1363. F. gr. 17.23. 


MINT or BYBLUS. 
Monogram of King Adramelek. 
68 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 


Rev. Similar, style early. In field, AQ 
Miller, No. 1375. G. gr. 17.015. 


NUM IS MAT Cea 





Pen tS AE NA 


69-71 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Similar, but of later style. 
Rev. Similar, but of Muller’s style IV. 
In field, A 
Roller. -No. 1375._F to F. D. C. gr. 17.095; 
T7205 17.10. Plate ITI. 


MINT or AKE. 
Series I, circa 332-328 B.c. 
72 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 


Rev. Similar. Beneath throne, M. 


Newell, The Dated Alexander Coinage of 
Simon and Ake, No. 2. VG. gr. 17.14. 


Series III, circa 326-320 B.c. 
73 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
mew soimilar,- In field, 2 (year 
Pi=-cired 323 B.C.). 
Newell, 1. c. No. 18. VF. gr. 17.07. 
Plate IV. 


Mint oF BABYLON. 
Series I], circa 329-326 B.c. 
74 [TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Head of Heracles to r., of 
“Babylonian style.” 
Rev. Zeus enthroned to 1. Beneath 
throne, (Y¥ and M. (Symbol origi- 
nally in the exergue is “off flan.” ) 
Maier -NoO..670: UH. gr: 17.20. 


Poe ert NO GRA PHS 


ig | ALEX AN DiEReerT On ena 


75 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. From same obverse die. 
Rev. Similar, but with back to throne. 
In field, THUNDERBOLT. Beneath throne, 


Ky and M. 
Muller, No. 670, (VG. Gf. at 741 


176 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, wREATH. Same 
monogram and M beneath throne. 
Variety not in Miller. VF. gr. 17.09. 
77 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, cANTHARUS. 
Same monogram and M beneath throne. 
Variety not in Miller. F. D. C. gr. 17.18. 
78 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, rose. Same 
monogram and M beneath throne. 
Variety. not in Miller. VF. gr. 17.225. 
Series III, circa 326-324 B.c. 
79 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, BUNCH oF 
GRAPES and M. Same monogram be- 


neath throne. 
Muller, No. 692. VF. gr. 17.155. 


N-U M:1’S MeAST YT Geer 





Peo > AE N-A 


Series IV, circa 323-320 B.C. 
80 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar, but of more advanced 
style (Miuller’s style IV). In field, M. 
Beneath throne, AY. 
Maller, No. 1272. VE... gr: 17.115. 
81-82 TETRADRACHMS. 
In name of Philip Arrhidzeus 
(after 323 B.c.). 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar, but inscribed, BASIAEQS 
®IAIMMOY. In field, M. Beneath 
throne, AY. 
Miller, No. 99. VF. gr. 17.09; 17.115. 
After 317 B.c. 
83 TETRADRACHM. 


Obv. Heracles’ head of fine style to r. 


Rev. Zeus enthroned tol. In exergue, 
BASIAEQOS; on r., AAEFZANAPOY. 
In field, BAP in wreatH. Beneath 


throne, MI. 


Peieee None 7 34. Us D.C. gr. 07.115. 
Plate IV. 


ANCIENT IMITATION OF THE 
ALEXANDER COINAGE. 


84 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Head imitated from Babylonian 
issues. 


Pee NOON O GRAPHS 


15 


ALEX A N Di Oe 


Rev. Seated Zeus imitated from Cyp- 
riote or Phcenician issues. On r., 


AAEBANA. On 1, ASBAVVAY 
Not cleaned. VG. gr. 16.52. Plate IV. 


BQOLOTIA. 
Period 379-338 B.c. 
85 STATER. 
Obv. Beeotian shield. 
Rev. Amphora between AI—Q. 
Brit. Mus. Cat. p. 82. No. 134. Somewhat 
worn. 
(86 STATER. 
Obv. Beeotian shield. 
Rev. Amphora between KA—BI. 
Brit. Mus. Cat. p. 83. No. 150. Somewhat 
worn. Plate V. 
Period 338-335 or later. 
87 STATER. 
| Obv. Beeotian shield. 
Rev. Amphora between BO—IQ. 
BUNCH OF GRAPES above. 
Brit. Mus. Cat. p. 36. No. 42. Somewhat | 


worn. Plate V. 
JEGINA. 
Period 550-456 B.C. 
88-977 STATERS. 
Obv. Sea-turtle. 
Rev. Incuse square divided by bands 


NUMIS Dal eye 


Sek SAE NA 


into a conventional pattern of five 
compartments. 

Prievowrs Cat, Pi. sxxiv, Nos. 1, 2. All 
very much worn. 

Period 404-350 B.c., or later. 
98-105 STATERS. 

Obv. Land-tortoise (testudo gr@ca). 
Rev. Incuse square divided by bands 
into a conventional pattern of five 
compartments. 


brit. Mus. Cat. Pi. xxiv, Nos. 10-12. F.-VF. 
Plate V. 


At least three and probably more of 
these eight staters, all in the finest con- 


dition, were of the later type with nar-| 
row bands, spread fabric, and tortoise 
Or later style. 


SICYON. 
Period 400-300 B.C. 

106 STATER. 
Obv. Chimera to 1. Beneath, SE. 
Rev. Dove-flying to 1. in wreath. 
ett Mus. Cat. Pl. vii. No. 17. Somewhat 
worn. 

107 STATER. 
Opn. Chimera to r. Beneath, SI. 
Rev. Dove flying to r. in wreath. 
Somewhat worn. Plate V. 


Peri M ON,O GR-A PHS 





1S 


ALEX AN DE Re St Oe 


ELIS (OLYMPIA). 
Period 421-365 B.c. 


108 STATER. 


Obv. On boss of a round shield, eagle 
to 1. devouring serpent. 


Rev. Thunderbolt between F—A. 
Seltman, Nos. 162-6 (die BV). Much worn 
and covered with punchmarks. 


Period 343-323 B.C. 


10g STATER. 


Obv. Laureate head of Zeus to r. 
Rev. Eagle standing to r. on Ionic 
capital. In field, THUNDERBOLT and 


SERPENT. 
Seltman, Nos. 207-12 (die CT). Somewhat 
worn. 


Period 363-323 B.c., or later. 


IIo STATER. 


Obv. Head of Hera to r. wearing 
stephanos inscribed FAAEION. In 
field; F {ae 

Rev. Eagle standing to 1., head to r. 
and wings spread. The whole in olive 


wreath. 
Seltman, No. 344 (dies FG-w). VF. 
Plate V. 


One of the principal reasons impelling 


the writer to publish this little find (be- 


N: U MP 1S MeAV Te Cw Oe 


Pe haloes Ar NVA 


fore other more important ones) is that, 
small though it is, it furnishes a very 
typical specimen of the kind of hoards| 
buried in Hellas during the last quarter| 
of the fourth century B.c. The usual] 
contents of such deposits may be sum-| 
marized briefly as follows: a large pro-| 
portion of Alexander’s tetradrachms in| 
which Macedonian issues predominate ;} 
a smaller but not at all negligible num-| 
ber of the issues (both contemporaneous| 
and posthumous) of Philip II; and,| 
finally, a scattering number of such local! 
and autonomous issues as were still being} 
struck in the larger cities or were still} 
generally current—though their original| 
mints had been closed. Furthermore, | 
from the standpoint of the Alexander} 
series, the Andritsaena hoard is interest-| 
ing as representing the Greek counter-| 
part, in everything but size, of the great} 
Egyptian find of Demanhur. With one 
important exception all of its varieties 
are to be found in the Demanhur deposit. 
And this one exception, No. 83, enables 
us to place the probable burial date of 


Pee O NO GRAPHS 








20 


ALEXANDER Sh Gy 


the Andritsaena hoard within rather 


narrow limits. 

It is to be noticed that not one of our 
Alexander coins was struck after the 
death of Philip Arrhidzeus, excepting 
only No. 83. Now this piece represents 
the first issue immediately following the 
series current in Babylon at the time of 
his death.? With them this coin is closely 
bound by great similarity of detail, style, 
and fabric. As these very soon change, 
it must have been struck early in the 
course of the new issue. It cannot 
therefore have appeared much after the 
commencement of 316 B.c., for Philip 
was assassinated early in November of 
317 B.c.4 This hoard cannot, then, have 
been buried earlier than the year 316. 
As this particular Babylonian coin is in 
such perfect condition it could have seen 
but little, if any, circulation. In our cal- 
culations, however, we must allow a cer- 
tain time for its long journey from the 
plains of Babylonia to the mountains of 
the western Peloponnesus. This will of 
necessity bring us to the end of 316, or 


NUM I SSM AGT GN. 


Pen RTT SAENA 


even well into the year 315 B.c. as the 


only possible date at which the Andrit- 
saena hoard could have been buried. The 
total absence of so many very common 
coins struck in the last years of Philip 
Arrhidzus or in the first years of Alex- 
ander IV forbids setting the burial at 
a later date. This is further corrobo- 
rated by the uniformly brilliant condi- 
tion exhibited by all the coins in the 
hoard which date after about 320 B.c. 
Thus, on the sole evidence of the coins 
in this find, we seem amply justified in 
fixing on the year 315 B.c. as the prob- 
able time at which they were buried. 
And this date would seem to fit 
in remarkably well with certain polit- 
ical events which took place in the 
Peloponnesus at this time, and which 
might have induced the former owner 
of our hoard to consign it to Mother 
Earth. We know that after the success- 
ful conclusion of Antigonus’ campaigns 
against Eumenes in the east, he moved 
his army from Babylon to Cilicia, where 
he went into winter quarters. This was 





Payee VoONO GRAPHS 





ALEXANDER SHO 


in the late autumn of 216 B.C) Ate 
time he found himself threatened by a 
powerful coalition of the remaining sa- 
traps, Cassander of Macedon, Lysi- 
machus of Thrace, Assander of Caria, 
and Ptolemy of Egypt. To hold Cas- 
sander in check while he settled with 
the remainder, Antigonus now sent his 
trusted friend, Aristodemus of Miletus, 
with one thousand talents to the Pelo- 
ponnesus with instructions to raise an 
army of mercenaries and, especially, to 
win Polysperchon for his cause. The 
latter had, since 318 B.c., been waging 
desperate warfare against Cassander, 
and now found himself in the possession 
of a large portion of the Peloponnesus. 
By the beginning of 315 B.c., Aristode- 
mus had accomplished all his objects and, 
together with Polysperchon, was at the 
head of a considerable army. 

In the meanwhile Apollonides, Cas- 
sander’s general stationed in Argos, had 
been able to hold his own until his mas- 
ter’s arrival, and even to seize the town 
of Stymphalus. Having recruited a 


NUM 1S MAsT i Cee. ee. 


PNEDRITSAENA 


fresh army in Macedonia, Cassander, in 
the spring of 315 B.c., marched south 
through Thessaly and Bceeotia, secured 
Corinth’s harbor Kenchree,® and pushed 
Ome cinto- Arcadia. He seized Orcho- 
menus and staged an ambitious raid over 
into Messenia. As, however, he found 
the city of Messene too strongly held by 
Polysperchon to warrant an attempt at 
assault, he returned to Arcadia. Leav- 
ing Damis as military commander of 
the district, Cassander went to Argos 
and celebrated here the Nemean Games. 
These are reckoned by Droysen® to have 
been held in the first year of the 116th 
Olympiad, or August of 315 B.c. Soon 
after he returned with his army to Mace- 
donia, Cassander’s opponents, immedi- 
ately improving upon this opportunity, 
again overran all the Peloponnesus, 
chased the garrisons from town after 
town, and soon were in undisturbed pos- 
session of practically all of the peninsula. 

Thus ended the campaign of 315 B.c. 
Although the fighting was resumed with 
the spring of 314, it was principally con- 



















Poe MM OTN -O G R*A PH S 


ALEXANDER 3H Op 


fined to northwestern Elis (about Kyl- 
lene) and to the province of Achaia, 
leaving the district about modern An- 
dritsaena quite untouched. This state of 
affairs, so far as we can gather from our 
ancient sources, also held true for the 
ensuing years. In other words, it would 
appear that only in 315 B.c. was the 
country, within a radius of twenty miles 
of Andritsaena, disturbed by actually 
contending armies so that life and prop- 
erty would not be safe.7 At that time 
the hills about Andritsaena lay but a 
little to one side of Cassander’s direct 
route from Orchomenus to Messene. He 
would probably at least have sent raid- 
ing parties into the hills during his ad- 
vance southwards, if only to protect his 
flank, as well as his line of supplies and 
retreat, against any sudden attack. Cas- 
sander’s campaign appears to have been 
merely a tour de force, in the course of 
which he held only the places actually 
occupied by his soldiers. All the re- 
maining portions of the Peloponnesus 
and all but a few of the large cities (such 





NUMISMA eG ee 





Pee RL SA ENA 


as Argos, Stymphalus, Orchomenus, and 
possibly Epidaurus) were in the hands 
of Polysperchon, his son, Alexander, 
Aristodemus, and their allies. The latter, 
however, did not once dare to meet Cas- 
sander’s veteran forces in open battle, 
but contented themselves with holding 
the walled cities, and undoubtedly the 
mountains to either side of his advancing 
forces. Guerilla warfare was apparently 
the order of the day. 


No wonder then that in such troublous | 


times, and well within the zone of active 
operations, the former owner of our 
hoard decided to place his savings in as 
safe a place as possible. Why he was 
never able to remove them later is, of 
course, open to many conjectures. To 
attempt a solution would be futile. 
With the sole exception of No. 83, the 
Philip and Alexander coins in the An- 
dritsaena hoard call for but little com- 
ment. The issues of Amphipolis, the 
largest of all the Alexander mints, out- 
number those of any other one mint, as 
is only natural for a hoard found in a 


Pete OO NO GRAPHS 


Sal 


26 


ALEXANDER 2H Osea. 


country enjoying close and _ constant 
communications with Macedonia. This 
was even the case with such a distant 
hoard as that of Demanhur (q. v.). On 
the other hand it is interesting to ob- 
serve that, if taken together, the Asiatic 
Alexander issues by far outnumber (43 
as against 30) the European ones. This is 
not usually the case with hoards found 
in Europe and dating from the last quar- 
ter of the fourth century B.c.2 In this 
case, however, there may be an easy 
solution. It will be remembered that in 
316 B.C., or just the year before the prob- 
able burial date of our hoard, Aristo- 
demus was sent by Antigonus to the 
Peloponnesus with a thousand talents 
with which to raise troops.® Again, 
early in 315 B.c., Diodorus states!9 that 
Polysperchon’s son, Alexander, returned 
from a short visit to Antigonus in Cilicia 
with a further sum of five hundred tal- 
ents. These huge sums were undoubtedly 
in the form of coined money. There 
were no facilities in the southern Pelo- 
ponnesus to convert so much bullion into 


NUM 1 SMA Pe eee 



























pene en lS AE NA 


ready money, and the all-important time 
was lacking. It would obviously have 
been far more expedient for Antigonus 
merely to turn over already coined money 
furnished him by the many active mints 
at his command in the east. Further- 
more, we may gather from Diodorus! 
that his recent successful campaigns in 
the east had been most lucrative. 
Antigonus at this time was assembling 
a great army in Cilicia for the coming 
expedition against Syria and Egypt. For 
this purpose he had probably seen to it 
that the satrapal coffers should be well 
filled with the “sinews of war” in an 
immediately available form. Any coins 
Aristodemus, and later, Alexander, had 
brought with them from Asia would soon 
be certain to find their way through- 
out the length and breadth of the south- 
ern Peloponnesus. The newly hired 
soldiers would be only too ready to spend 
the first instalments of their pay. Their 
commanders, because of political condi- 
tions, had only the immediately surround- 
ing countryside from which to draw their 


Pore MOON O GRAPHS 








28 ALEX ANDE KE Oy 


supplies. These would probably not be 
all commandeered. In a poor country like 
this, Polysperchon and his allies had to 
depend too much upon the good-will of 
the inhabitants—ever ready to welcome 
a change—to risk not paying for at least 
some of the supplies requisitioned for 
the support of their armies. Thus, very 
soon, probably a considerable number 
of Alexander coins from eastern mints 
was in circulation among the people of 
Messenia, Laconia, southern Elis, and 
southern Arcadia. It is possible, also, 
that many of the earlier eastern issues 
had already found their way to the Pelo- 
ponnesus (as to the rest of Hellas) in 
the hands of returning veterans from 
Alexander’s armies. 

Provided that we really have the en- 
tire find before us, it is curious, to say 
the least, to note the entire absence of 
any of those Alexandrine issues which 
were first assigned to a mint at Sicyon 
by M. Babelon.t? The very same phe- 
nomenon is also observable in the Kypa- 
rissia hoard.t2 Of course, in such small 


NUM 1S MAT) CeO 





Panella AE NA 


hoards chance must needs play a very 
large part and too much stress must not 
be laid upon the absence of any one 
variety, particularly if it be at all scarce. 

To the best of the writer’s knowledge 
the Andritsaena hoard, in point of date, 
is the earliest (of which we have record) 
in which posthumous issues of Philip II 
(No. 10, Plate I) make an appearance. 
Later these coins become quite common, 
Pid ines Megara, iLamia, and other 
Grecian hoards which it is hoped will 
be published eventually. ~ 

As shown above by the catalogue, in- 
cluded in this find was also an ancient 
forgery of the Alexander tetradrachm 
(No. 84, Plate IV). The nature of the 
coin is indicated by its blundered legends, 
the dryness of the style, and the fact 
that its obverse is imitated from genu- 
ine Babylonian issues, while its reverse 
copies certain early Phcenician or Cyp- 
riote Alexanders. Furthermore, it is 
the only coin in the hoard which, in 
addition to the purple oxide and yellow- 
ish dirt which it bears in common with 


Peewee ON O GRAPHS 





30 


ALEXAN DERG Ope 


the remaining coins of the find, is also 
encrusted with thick patches of verdigris. 
This is a phenomenon frequently ob- 
served by the writer in certain hoards 
which have contained both ancient for- 
geries and genuine issues. Almost invari- 
ably these imitations of the period will 
be encrusted with spots of verdigris not 
shown by any of the genuine pieces. 
This is undoubtedly due to the poorer 
quality of the silver of which the for- 
geries are made, the larger amount of 
copper in their alloy brought to the sur- 
face by decomposition, and other chem- 
ical changes which have taken place 
during the long period in which they 
have lain buried underground. The 
accompanying genuine coins, having but 
little, if any, copper in the composition 
of their metal, will only show the usual 
forms of decomposition customary for 
pure silver. 

In view of the Peloponnesian origin 
of our find, it is but natural that coins 
of A‘gina, Sicyon, and Elis should have 
formed the greater portion of the auton- 





N UM 1S Mes Ge ee 








Peer elis AE N A 


omous coinages which it contained. It 
is noticeable, as was also the case with 
the Kyparissia hoard, that Athenian 
tetradrachms and Corinthian staters are 
both absent. The Bceotian, Sicyonian, 
and Olympian issues call for no special 
remarks. They are precisely what one 
would have expected to occur in a hoard 
of this date and place. 

The Atginetan staters, Nos. 98-105, on 
the other hand, would seem to raise a 
question of dating. It will be noticed 
that they are of the Testudo Greca 
(land-tortoise) type and belong to the 
anepigraphic series, now assigned by 
scholars to the years immediately follow- 
ing the A°ginetan restoration of 404 B.c.14 
At least three in our find are of the late, 
spread-fabric type with thin (instead of 
thick) bands dividing the incuse of their 
reverses. All the specimens are in fine 
condition and could have seen but little 
circulation. On the other hand, not one 
of the inscribed varieties, bearing A, AT, 
aii or SALPIT, turned up. These are 
supposed to have been struck during the 








Peewee OeN OrG RAPH S 








32 


ALEXANDER IO ae 


years immediately preceding 348 B.c. It 
is curious that these should be missing 
when the supposedly much earlier series 
was present not only in goodly numbers 
but also in such fine condition. It would 
seem as if the latter (the uninscribed, 
thin-banded, and spread-fabric type) had 
been struck but recently, and not at the 
very commencement of the century. 
The writer might not have paid any 
particular attention to this curious anom- 
aly—in hoards so much is due to mere 
chance—had it not been for the consid- 
eration that another little hoard (or 
portion of a hoard), brought to his at- 
tention in 1921, presented the very same 
feature. That lot consisted of six Philip 
II tetradrachms (Muller, Nos. 158, 252, 
263, two specimens of 269, 270); four- 
teen Alexander tetradrachms (Muller, 
Nos. 3, 216, 392, two specimens of 550, 
var. of 567, 684, 697, var. 704, 853, 860, 
var. 1302, var. 1342; 1473) 3 andetitee 
/7Eginetan staters in fine condition and 
all of the 404-350 B.c. type occurring in 
the Andritsaena find. Here, too, in- 


NUMIS MAW Gy es 


Pee eb foo EAN A 


scribed A*ginetan staters are noticeable 
by their absence. 

The reader will forgive a slight di- 
gression to allow the discussion of this 
second “find.” A selection of four typ- 
ical specimens is given on Plate VI. The 
coins themselves were shown to the 
writer in November, 1921, by Mr. A. H. 
Baldwin of London. According to the 
latter’s statement, there could be no ques- 
tion but that these twenty-three coins 
had really been found together. When 
first offered for sale they had all been 
covered with an identical type of patina 
which, as was also the case with the 
Andritsaena coins, proved easily remov- 
able, so that the coins to-day have almost 
the appearance of having been freshly 
minted. Mr. Baldwin further stated that 
the lot had been brought in to him but 
a short time before by a Greek, a native 
of the little Peloponnesian city of “Tai- 
poli” (undoubtedly Tripolis, also known 
as Tripolitsa), who informed him that 
the coins had only recently been found 
“in that neighborhood.” 


Peewee ON O.G RAPHS 


33 


34 


ALEX AND EReeH Ores 


The astonishing similarity in content 
of this “Tripolitsa” find with what has 
come to us of the Andritsaena hoard is 
at once manifest and at least suggests 
the possibility of a common origin. The 
Alexander issues in both cover exactly 
the same general period and show the 
same proportion of European to Asiatic 
issues. As against the 30 European and 
43 Asiatic Alexanders of the Andrit- 
saena lot, compare the 5 European and 
7 Asiatic in the “Tripolitsa”—the pro- 
portion is practically identical. Both 
hoards contained, in addition, a propor- 
tionate number of Philip’s coins and 
AEginetan staters. The average condi- 
tion of wear exhibited by the coins in 
the two lots is also absolutely identical. 
Furthermore, Tripolitsa, one of the larg- 
est towns in the Peloponnesus and the 
chef teu of Arcadia, is more or less di- 
rectly connected with Andritsaena by 
carriage road via Megalopolis and Kary- 
taena, so that it would not be so very 
surprising for coins found in the neigh- 
borhood of Andritsaena to turn up in 


NUM IS MAST Tiere 


PeNWeO RIP SAENA 


Tripolitsa. It is curious, of course, but 
not entirely without precedent, that so 
long a time should have elapsed between 
the appearance on the market of the two 
lots. In February of 1922, the writer 
visited Athens and made many inquiries 
concerning a possible hoard of Alexan- 
der’s coins supposedly recently found in 
the Peloponnesus. On the last day of 
his stay in Athens a certain dealer! came 
to him stating that he had just received 
word concerning a lot of about a hundred 
Alexanders from a recent find—but the 
writer could not ascertain where the 
find had been made, nor could he delay 
his departure for the somewhat remote 
possibility of eventually being able to 
secure the “find.” Whether this lot had 
anything to do with the Andritsaena 
pieces which arrived in Athens a year 
later, is certainly not at present suscep- 
tible of proof. So much for the “Tripo- 
litsa” find. For the time-being nothing 
more definite can be said concerning its 
origin, but in studying the Andritsaena 
hoard we must not lose sight of the cir- 


fee ON OG RK A PHS 


36 


ALEXANDER JO] 


cumstance that the “Tripolitsa” lot may 
also originally have belonged to it. 
The apparent absence of any inscribed 
fEginetan staters in the two lots de- 
scribed above is brought into yet 
stronger relief by a large hoard of an 
entirely different character. The writer 
refers to the great hoard of 1596 Bceo- 
tian, Sicyonian, and A*ginetan coins 
found in 1914 1n Thessaly and now in 
the Athens National Collection.1®° This 
remarkable find contained 1078 Bceotian 
staters from the earliest periods right 
down to, and including, coins of the period 
338-315 B.c. Because of the compara- 
tively large number of this latter class 
contained in the find, it must have been 
buried well after the year 333 B.c. Ge 
the accompanying 325 A‘ginetan staters, 
234 bore the sea-turtle as type, and so 
belong to the sixth and fifth centuries 
B.c. The remaining 90 specimens have the 
land-tortoise (testudo greca) and belong 
to the fourth century. Again it is to 
be noted that they include not a single 
specimen of the type bearing the inscrip- 


NUM 1S MAT Ghee. 


Pen Dekel A EN A 


tions A, AI, AIT, or AITI. This fact is 
all the more noteworthy as the find 
was a large one, and thus the element 
of chance is almost entirely eliminated. 
Can it be that the minting of silver sta- 
ters at A“gina did not really come to an 
end with the year 348 B.c.,17 but was 
again undertaken at a slightly later date 
and under the zgis of Macedon? 

Any detailed discussion, or any ten- 
tative rearrangement of the A*ginetan 
series, would be out of place here. That 
must be left for others to accomplish. 


Leaving aside the moot question of the 
real date of the inscribed A‘ginetan 
staters, the little Andritsaena hoard has 
at least sustained the assignment by Fox 
of the land-tortoise type to the fourth 
century. 


Peer we NO) GR A P-H-S 





38 


ALEXAN DER VHOg ae 


NOLES 


Muller, in describing this coin which is in the 
Paris collection, has mistaken the BEE symbol for 
a “‘lambda.”’ 


? None of these ten coins were actually seen by 
Mr. Noe, and they have been included only on 
the strength of a statement made by one of the 
Athenian coin dealers who saw the hoard before 
its dispersal. There is no adequate reason why 
they might not have been contained in the hoard. 


3 At the time the news of Philip’s death was re- 
ceived in Babylon, the coins represented by Miiller’s 
numbers 116, 117 (in name of Philip III) and 
1542, 1543 (in name of Alexander IV) were being 
struck. This conclusion has been reached by the 
writer in a study of the mint at Babylon which he 
hopes soon to publish. Unfortunately, we here 
cannot go into this matter in greater detail. 


* Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenismus, II, 1, p. 
ZA), Ore en. 


5 At this time held by Polysperchon’s son, Alex- 
ander. 


®° Droysen; Lvemlll 2 pays 


7It must be remembered that, because of the 
character of its contents, the hoard could not 
possibly have been buried previous to the com- 
mencement of 316 B.c. Therefore Polysperchon’s 
campaign against Megalopolis in 318 s.c. and 
Cassander’s attacks on Tegea in 317 B.c. need not 
be taken into account. In 316 B.c. Cassander did 
indeed invade the Peloponnesus and seize Argos. 
Messene and other cities of the peninsula were 
“freed,’? or voluntarily sided with him. So far as 


NUM LS MeA ICS Neo aie 


pene SAE NA 


our sources would seem to show, however, the 
forces never came to any actual fighting, for the 
power of Polysperchon in the Peloponnesus at this 
time was comparatively weak. 


8 For instance, in the Kyparissia hoard (q. v.) 
there were 15 European Alexanders, as against 
only 5 Asiatic. Also in the Lamia hoard (in the 
Athens National Collection) we have 18 European 
to 11 Asiatic Alexanders. The Messene hoard, 
which the writer hopes soon to publish, represents a 
special and very interesting case. Here, namely, 
there turned up 30 Asiatic and only one European 
Alexander! 


Spiedorus, XIX, 57, 5. 
BOENGIEXS) OTs 5s 


1 XIX, 56, 2 and 5; XIX, 57, 1, where we also 
learn that the other satraps were only too anxious 
to divide the spoils. 


12 Revue Numismatique, 1904, pp. 117-133. 


13Qne, however, occurred in the Epidaurus 
hoard, Ephemeris, 1903, pp. 98-116. 


14 Karle Fox in Corolla Numismatica, pp. 34-46. 
Head, Historia Numorum, 2nd Ed., p. 397. Head, 
in the first edition of the Historia and in the 
Brit. Mus. Cat. Attica, etc., had previously as- 
signed these coins to the impossible date 480-456 
B.c. Curiously enough, Babelon has_ recently 
followed him in this (Traité, II°, pp. 155-158). 


15 Not the same dealer from whom the Andrit- 
saena pieces were eventually acquired. 


16 Published by J. N. Svoronos, in Arch, Deltion, 
Mol il, pp. 273-335: 


17 As both Head and Babelon believe. 


Peo eMO N7O GRAPHS 








PLATE I 


| ANDRITSAENA 








< 
ZA 
aa 
<< 
Vv) 
ES 
aa 
QA 
vA 
< 





Se ell ee ee, 








Prate III 





PLATELLV 


ANDRITSAENA 





J re Sy ne fe TEP ve A ' 
Re Seen Oe ee ee 








ANDRITSAENA ; PLate V 





ya a Se a Poe 











PLATE VI 


ANDRITSAENA 








